Artificial basic intelligence (AGI) is a type of artificial intelligence (AI) that matches or goes beyond human cognitive capabilities across a vast array of cognitive jobs. This contrasts with narrow AI, which is limited to particular tasks. [1] Artificial superintelligence (ASI), on the other hand, refers to AGI that significantly exceeds human cognitive abilities. AGI is considered among the definitions of strong AI.

Creating AGI is a main objective of AI research study and of business such as OpenAI [2] and Meta. [3] A 2020 study identified 72 active AGI research and development tasks across 37 countries. [4]

The timeline for achieving AGI remains a topic of continuous argument amongst researchers and experts. Since 2023, some argue that it might be possible in years or decades; others maintain it may take a century or longer; a minority think it may never be accomplished; and another minority claims that it is already here. [5] [6] Notable AI scientist Geoffrey Hinton has actually revealed concerns about the rapid development towards AGI, suggesting it could be accomplished earlier than numerous anticipate. [7]

There is argument on the specific meaning of AGI and concerning whether modern-day large language models (LLMs) such as GPT-4 are early kinds of AGI. [8] AGI is a typical subject in science fiction and futures research studies. [9] [10]

Contention exists over whether AGI represents an existential risk. [11] [12] [13] Many experts on AI have stated that alleviating the threat of human termination positioned by AGI needs to be an international concern. [14] [15] Others discover the development of AGI to be too remote to present such a threat. [16] [17]

Terminology

AGI is likewise referred to as strong AI, [18] [19] complete AI, [20] human-level AI, [5] human-level intelligent AI, or general intelligent action. [21]

Some academic sources reserve the term "strong AI" for computer programs that experience sentience or consciousness. [a] In contrast, forum.pinoo.com.tr weak AI (or narrow AI) is able to resolve one particular problem but lacks general cognitive abilities. [22] [19] Some academic sources use "weak AI" to refer more broadly to any programs that neither experience consciousness nor have a mind in the exact same sense as humans. [a]

Related principles consist of artificial superintelligence and transformative AI. An artificial superintelligence (ASI) is a hypothetical kind of AGI that is a lot more usually intelligent than human beings, [23] while the idea of transformative AI associates with AI having a big influence on society, for instance, similar to the agricultural or commercial transformation. [24]

A structure for classifying AGI in levels was proposed in 2023 by Google DeepMind researchers. They define five levels of AGI: emerging, skilled, specialist, virtuoso, and superhuman. For instance, a qualified AGI is specified as an AI that exceeds 50% of knowledgeable grownups in a large range of non-physical tasks, and a superhuman AGI (i.e. an artificial superintelligence) is likewise defined however with a threshold of 100%. They consider big language designs like ChatGPT or LLaMA 2 to be circumstances of emerging AGI. [25]

Characteristics

Various popular definitions of intelligence have actually been proposed. One of the leading propositions is the Turing test. However, there are other widely known meanings, and some researchers disagree with the more popular techniques. [b]

Intelligence characteristics

Researchers usually hold that intelligence is required to do all of the following: [27]

factor, usage method, fix puzzles, and make judgments under unpredictability
represent knowledge, including typical sense understanding
plan
find out
- interact in natural language
- if required, integrate these abilities in conclusion of any given goal


Many interdisciplinary techniques (e.g. cognitive science, computational intelligence, and decision making) consider additional traits such as creativity (the capability to form unique psychological images and ideas) [28] and autonomy. [29]

Computer-based systems that show a lot of these abilities exist (e.g. see computational imagination, automated reasoning, choice support group, robot, evolutionary calculation, smart agent). There is dispute about whether modern AI systems have them to an appropriate degree.

Physical traits

Other capabilities are thought about desirable in intelligent systems, as they may impact intelligence or aid in its expression. These include: [30]

- the capability to sense (e.g. see, hear, bbarlock.com and so on), and
- the capability to act (e.g. move and manipulate objects, change place to explore, etc).


This includes the capability to identify and react to risk. [31]

Although the capability to sense (e.g. see, hear, etc) and the capability to act (e.g. relocation and control things, modification place to explore, etc) can be preferable for some smart systems, [30] these physical capabilities are not strictly needed for an entity to certify as AGI-particularly under the thesis that large language designs (LLMs) may already be or become AGI. Even from a less positive point of view on LLMs, there is no firm requirement for an AGI to have a human-like kind; being a silicon-based computational system is adequate, offered it can process input (language) from the external world in place of human senses. This analysis aligns with the understanding that AGI has actually never been proscribed a specific physical embodiment and thus does not require a capability for locomotion or traditional "eyes and ears". [32]

Tests for human-level AGI

Several tests implied to confirm human-level AGI have been considered, including: [33] [34]

The concept of the test is that the maker has to try and pretend to be a guy, by answering concerns put to it, and it will only pass if the pretence is reasonably persuading. A substantial portion of a jury, who must not be expert about devices, need to be taken in by the pretence. [37]

AI-complete issues

A problem is informally called "AI-complete" or "AI-hard" if it is thought that in order to resolve it, one would require to carry out AGI, due to the fact that the solution is beyond the capabilities of a purpose-specific algorithm. [47]

There are numerous issues that have actually been conjectured to require basic intelligence to fix along with humans. Examples consist of computer vision, natural language understanding, and handling unexpected situations while fixing any real-world problem. [48] Even a particular task like translation needs a device to read and compose in both languages, follow the author's argument (reason), understand the context (understanding), and consistently recreate the author's original intent (social intelligence). All of these problems require to be fixed all at once in order to reach human-level device efficiency.

However, numerous of these jobs can now be performed by modern big language models. According to Stanford University's 2024 AI index, AI has reached human-level performance on lots of standards for checking out understanding and visual reasoning. [49]

History

Classical AI

Modern AI research study started in the mid-1950s. [50] The first generation of AI researchers were persuaded that artificial general intelligence was possible and that it would exist in just a couple of decades. [51] AI leader Herbert A. Simon composed in 1965: "devices will be capable, within twenty years, of doing any work a guy can do." [52]

Their predictions were the inspiration for Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke's character HAL 9000, who embodied what AI scientists believed they might create by the year 2001. AI leader Marvin Minsky was a consultant [53] on the project of making HAL 9000 as sensible as possible according to the consensus forecasts of the time. He stated in 1967, "Within a generation ... the issue of producing 'expert system' will significantly be resolved". [54]

Several classical AI jobs, such as Doug Lenat's Cyc job (that began in 1984), and Allen Newell's Soar task, were directed at AGI.

However, in the early 1970s, it ended up being obvious that scientists had actually grossly underestimated the problem of the task. Funding companies became hesitant of AGI and put scientists under increasing pressure to produce helpful "used AI". [c] In the early 1980s, Japan's Fifth Generation Computer Project restored interest in AGI, setting out a ten-year timeline that included AGI objectives like "bring on a casual discussion". [58] In response to this and the success of expert systems, kenpoguy.com both market and government pumped money into the field. [56] [59] However, confidence in AI stunningly collapsed in the late 1980s, and the objectives of the Fifth Generation Computer Project were never ever satisfied. [60] For the second time in 20 years, AI scientists who anticipated the impending accomplishment of AGI had actually been misinterpreted. By the 1990s, AI researchers had a track record for making vain promises. They became hesitant to make forecasts at all [d] and prevented mention of "human level" expert system for worry of being labeled "wild-eyed dreamer [s]. [62]

Narrow AI research study

In the 1990s and early 21st century, mainstream AI achieved business success and academic respectability by concentrating on specific sub-problems where AI can produce proven results and commercial applications, such as speech recognition and suggestion algorithms. [63] These "applied AI" systems are now utilized extensively throughout the technology industry, and research in this vein is heavily moneyed in both academia and market. Since 2018 [update], advancement in this field was considered an emerging pattern, and a mature stage was anticipated to be reached in more than ten years. [64]

At the millenium, numerous mainstream AI researchers [65] hoped that strong AI might be established by integrating programs that solve numerous sub-problems. Hans Moravec composed in 1988:

I am confident that this bottom-up path to artificial intelligence will one day satisfy the traditional top-down route over half way, prepared to offer the real-world competence and the commonsense understanding that has actually been so frustratingly elusive in reasoning programs. Fully smart devices will result when the metaphorical golden spike is driven unifying the two efforts. [65]

However, even at the time, this was disputed. For example, Stevan Harnad of Princeton University concluded his 1990 paper on the symbol grounding hypothesis by mentioning:

The expectation has frequently been voiced that "top-down" (symbolic) approaches to modeling cognition will in some way meet "bottom-up" (sensory) approaches somewhere in between. If the grounding factors to consider in this paper are valid, then this expectation is hopelessly modular and there is really only one practical path from sense to symbols: from the ground up. A free-floating symbolic level like the software application level of a computer will never be reached by this route (or vice versa) - nor is it clear why we must even try to reach such a level, considering that it appears arriving would just amount to uprooting our signs from their intrinsic significances (thereby merely lowering ourselves to the functional equivalent of a programmable computer system). [66]

Modern artificial general intelligence research

The term "artificial basic intelligence" was used as early as 1997, by Mark Gubrud [67] in a conversation of the ramifications of completely automated military production and operations. A mathematical formalism of AGI was proposed by Marcus Hutter in 2000. Named AIXI, the proposed AGI agent maximises "the capability to please objectives in a large range of environments". [68] This kind of AGI, identified by the ability to increase a mathematical definition of intelligence rather than display human-like behaviour, [69] was likewise called universal expert system. [70]

The term AGI was re-introduced and promoted by Shane Legg and Ben Goertzel around 2002. [71] AGI research activity in 2006 was described by Pei Wang and Ben Goertzel [72] as "producing publications and initial results". The first summer season school in AGI was organized in Xiamen, China in 2009 [73] by the Xiamen university's Artificial Brain Laboratory and OpenCog. The first university course was given up 2010 [74] and 2011 [75] at Plovdiv University, Bulgaria by Todor Arnaudov. MIT presented a course on AGI in 2018, arranged by Lex Fridman and featuring a number of visitor speakers.

As of 2023 [upgrade], a small number of computer scientists are active in AGI research, and lots of contribute to a series of AGI conferences. However, progressively more researchers have an interest in open-ended learning, [76] [77] which is the idea of enabling AI to constantly discover and innovate like human beings do.

Feasibility

Since 2023, the development and prospective achievement of AGI remains a topic of intense debate within the AI neighborhood. While traditional agreement held that AGI was a far-off objective, recent improvements have led some researchers and market figures to declare that early kinds of AGI may already exist. [78] AI leader Herbert A. Simon speculated in 1965 that "devices will be capable, within twenty years, of doing any work a male can do". This prediction stopped working to come real. Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen thought that such intelligence is not likely in the 21st century since it would require "unforeseeable and basically unforeseeable developments" and a "clinically deep understanding of cognition". [79] Writing in The Guardian, roboticist Alan Winfield declared the gulf in between contemporary computing and human-level expert system is as wide as the gulf between existing space flight and useful faster-than-light spaceflight. [80]

A more obstacle is the lack of clarity in defining what intelligence involves. Does it require awareness? Must it show the ability to set goals as well as pursue them? Is it purely a matter of scale such that if model sizes increase sufficiently, intelligence will emerge? Are centers such as planning, reasoning, and causal understanding required? Does intelligence require explicitly replicating the brain and its specific professors? Does it need emotions? [81]

Most AI researchers think strong AI can be attained in the future, but some thinkers, like Hubert Dreyfus and Roger Penrose, deny the possibility of achieving strong AI. [82] [83] John McCarthy is among those who believe human-level AI will be achieved, but that today level of development is such that a date can not properly be predicted. [84] AI specialists' views on the feasibility of AGI wax and wane. Four surveys performed in 2012 and 2013 suggested that the mean estimate among professionals for when they would be 50% positive AGI would get here was 2040 to 2050, depending upon the survey, with the mean being 2081. Of the specialists, 16.5% answered with "never ever" when asked the very same concern but with a 90% self-confidence rather. [85] [86] Further current AGI development considerations can be found above Tests for verifying human-level AGI.

A report by Stuart Armstrong and Kaj Sotala of the Machine Intelligence Research Institute discovered that "over [a] 60-year time frame there is a strong predisposition towards anticipating the arrival of human-level AI as between 15 and 25 years from the time the forecast was made". They examined 95 predictions made between 1950 and 2012 on when human-level AI will happen. [87]

In 2023, Microsoft scientists released an in-depth evaluation of GPT-4. They concluded: "Given the breadth and depth of GPT-4's abilities, our company believe that it could reasonably be considered as an early (yet still insufficient) variation of a synthetic basic intelligence (AGI) system." [88] Another research study in 2023 reported that GPT-4 outperforms 99% of people on the Torrance tests of creativity. [89] [90]

Blaise Agüera y Arcas and Peter Norvig composed in 2023 that a substantial level of basic intelligence has actually already been achieved with frontier models. They wrote that reluctance to this view comes from 4 main factors: a "healthy suspicion about metrics for AGI", an "ideological commitment to alternative AI theories or methods", a "commitment to human (or biological) exceptionalism", or a "issue about the economic implications of AGI". [91]

2023 also marked the emergence of big multimodal models (large language models efficient in processing or creating multiple modalities such as text, audio, and images). [92]

In 2024, OpenAI released o1-preview, the first of a series of models that "invest more time believing before they react". According to Mira Murati, this capability to believe before reacting represents a brand-new, additional paradigm. It improves design outputs by spending more computing power when creating the answer, whereas the design scaling paradigm enhances outputs by increasing the model size, training information and training calculate power. [93] [94]

An OpenAI staff member, Vahid Kazemi, claimed in 2024 that the company had actually accomplished AGI, stating, "In my viewpoint, we have actually already achieved AGI and it's even more clear with O1." Kazemi clarified that while the AI is not yet "much better than any human at any job", it is "much better than the majority of humans at a lot of tasks." He likewise addressed criticisms that big language designs (LLMs) merely follow predefined patterns, comparing their knowing procedure to the scientific approach of observing, assuming, and verifying. These declarations have triggered debate, as they rely on a broad and non-traditional definition of AGI-traditionally understood as AI that matches human intelligence across all domains. Critics argue that, while OpenAI's models show remarkable versatility, they might not fully meet this standard. Notably, Kazemi's comments came soon after OpenAI got rid of "AGI" from the terms of its partnership with Microsoft, prompting speculation about the company's tactical intentions. [95]

Timescales

Progress in synthetic intelligence has traditionally gone through durations of fast progress separated by durations when progress appeared to stop. [82] Ending each hiatus were essential advances in hardware, software application or both to produce area for additional progress. [82] [98] [99] For instance, the hardware offered in the twentieth century was not adequate to execute deep knowing, which requires great deals of GPU-enabled CPUs. [100]

In the introduction to his 2006 book, [101] Goertzel states that quotes of the time needed before a genuinely flexible AGI is developed vary from ten years to over a century. As of 2007 [upgrade], the agreement in the AGI research study community appeared to be that the timeline gone over by Ray Kurzweil in 2005 in The Singularity is Near [102] (i.e. in between 2015 and 2045) was plausible. [103] Mainstream AI researchers have actually provided a large range of opinions on whether development will be this fast. A 2012 meta-analysis of 95 such opinions discovered a predisposition towards predicting that the onset of AGI would occur within 16-26 years for contemporary and historic forecasts alike. That paper has actually been criticized for how it classified viewpoints as professional or non-expert. [104]

In 2012, Alex Krizhevsky, Ilya Sutskever, and Geoffrey Hinton established a neural network called AlexNet, which won the ImageNet competitors with a top-5 test error rate of 15.3%, considerably better than the second-best entry's rate of 26.3% (the conventional technique used a weighted amount of scores from various pre-defined classifiers). [105] AlexNet was considered the initial ground-breaker of the present deep knowing wave. [105]

In 2017, researchers Feng Liu, Yong Shi, and Ying Liu performed intelligence tests on publicly readily available and easily accessible weak AI such as Google AI, Apple's Siri, and others. At the maximum, these AIs reached an IQ worth of about 47, which corresponds around to a six-year-old kid in very first grade. An adult pertains to about 100 on average. Similar tests were performed in 2014, with the IQ rating reaching a maximum value of 27. [106] [107]

In 2020, OpenAI established GPT-3, a language model capable of carrying out many diverse tasks without particular training. According to Gary Grossman in a VentureBeat short article, while there is agreement that GPT-3 is not an example of AGI, it is thought about by some to be too advanced to be classified as a narrow AI system. [108]

In the exact same year, Jason Rohrer utilized his GPT-3 account to develop a chatbot, and provided a chatbot-developing platform called "Project December". OpenAI asked for modifications to the chatbot to adhere to their safety guidelines; Rohrer detached Project December from the GPT-3 API. [109]

In 2022, DeepMind established Gato, a "general-purpose" system capable of performing more than 600 different jobs. [110]

In 2023, Microsoft Research published a study on an early variation of OpenAI's GPT-4, contending that it exhibited more general intelligence than previous AI designs and showed human-level efficiency in jobs covering numerous domains, such as mathematics, coding, and law. This research triggered a debate on whether GPT-4 might be thought about an early, incomplete variation of synthetic basic intelligence, highlighting the requirement for further expedition and examination of such systems. [111]

In 2023, the AI researcher Geoffrey Hinton stated that: [112]

The concept that this stuff could in fact get smarter than people - a few individuals believed that, [...] But the majority of people believed it was method off. And I believed it was method off. I believed it was 30 to 50 years and even longer away. Obviously, I no longer think that.

In May 2023, Demis Hassabis likewise said that "The progress in the last few years has been quite amazing", and that he sees no reason it would slow down, expecting AGI within a decade and even a few years. [113] In March 2024, Nvidia's CEO, Jensen Huang, specified his expectation that within 5 years, AI would be capable of passing any test at least along with human beings. [114] In June 2024, the AI scientist Leopold Aschenbrenner, a previous OpenAI employee, approximated AGI by 2027 to be "strikingly possible". [115]

Whole brain emulation

While the advancement of transformer models like in ChatGPT is thought about the most promising path to AGI, [116] [117] entire brain emulation can act as an alternative approach. With whole brain simulation, a brain design is constructed by scanning and mapping a biological brain in detail, and after that copying and replicating it on a computer system or another computational device. The simulation model need to be sufficiently loyal to the original, so that it behaves in practically the exact same way as the initial brain. [118] Whole brain emulation is a type of brain simulation that is gone over in computational neuroscience and neuroinformatics, and for medical research purposes. It has been gone over in expert system research study [103] as a technique to strong AI. Neuroimaging innovations that might provide the necessary in-depth understanding are improving rapidly, and futurist Ray Kurzweil in the book The Singularity Is Near [102] forecasts that a map of sufficient quality will become available on a comparable timescale to the computing power needed to imitate it.

Early estimates

For low-level brain simulation, an extremely powerful cluster of computers or GPUs would be required, provided the massive amount of synapses within the human brain. Each of the 1011 (one hundred billion) nerve cells has on average 7,000 synaptic connections (synapses) to other neurons. The brain of a three-year-old kid has about 1015 synapses (1 quadrillion). This number declines with age, supporting by adulthood. Estimates vary for an adult, ranging from 1014 to 5 × 1014 synapses (100 to 500 trillion). [120] A price quote of the brain's processing power, based upon a basic switch model for neuron activity, is around 1014 (100 trillion) synaptic updates per second (SUPS). [121]

In 1997, Kurzweil took a look at various quotes for the hardware needed to equal the human brain and embraced a figure of 1016 computations per second (cps). [e] (For comparison, if a "computation" was equivalent to one "floating-point operation" - a procedure used to rate present supercomputers - then 1016 "computations" would be equivalent to 10 petaFLOPS, attained in 2011, while 1018 was attained in 2022.) He utilized this figure to anticipate the required hardware would be available sometime in between 2015 and 2025, if the rapid growth in computer power at the time of composing continued.

Current research

The Human Brain Project, an EU-funded initiative active from 2013 to 2023, has established a particularly in-depth and openly available atlas of the human brain. [124] In 2023, researchers from Duke University carried out a high-resolution scan of a mouse brain.

Criticisms of simulation-based approaches

The synthetic nerve cell design assumed by Kurzweil and utilized in many existing synthetic neural network applications is simple compared with biological neurons. A brain simulation would likely need to catch the detailed cellular behaviour of biological neurons, currently comprehended just in broad summary. The overhead presented by full modeling of the biological, chemical, and physical information of neural behaviour (especially on a molecular scale) would need computational powers numerous orders of magnitude larger than Kurzweil's price quote. In addition, the quotes do not account for glial cells, which are understood to contribute in cognitive processes. [125]

An essential criticism of the simulated brain approach stems from embodied cognition theory which asserts that human embodiment is a vital aspect of human intelligence and is required to ground significance. [126] [127] If this theory is correct, any fully practical brain model will need to incorporate more than just the neurons (e.g., a robotic body). Goertzel [103] proposes virtual personification (like in metaverses like Second Life) as an alternative, however it is unknown whether this would suffice.

Philosophical perspective

"Strong AI" as defined in viewpoint

In 1980, thinker John Searle coined the term "strong AI" as part of his Chinese room argument. [128] He proposed a difference between 2 hypotheses about expert system: [f]

Strong AI hypothesis: An expert system system can have "a mind" and "awareness".
Weak AI hypothesis: An artificial intelligence system can (just) act like it believes and has a mind and awareness.


The first one he called "strong" due to the fact that it makes a stronger statement: it assumes something special has taken place to the device that surpasses those capabilities that we can evaluate. The behaviour of a "weak AI" machine would be specifically identical to a "strong AI" device, but the latter would likewise have subjective conscious experience. This use is also typical in academic AI research and textbooks. [129]

In contrast to Searle and traditional AI, some futurists such as Ray Kurzweil use the term "strong AI" to imply "human level artificial basic intelligence". [102] This is not the like Searle's strong AI, unless it is presumed that awareness is required for human-level AGI. Academic thinkers such as Searle do not think that holds true, and to most expert system researchers the concern is out-of-scope. [130]

Mainstream AI is most interested in how a program behaves. [131] According to Russell and Norvig, "as long as the program works, they do not care if you call it real or a simulation." [130] If the program can behave as if it has a mind, then there is no need to know if it in fact has mind - certainly, there would be no chance to inform. For AI research study, Searle's "weak AI hypothesis" is equivalent to the declaration "synthetic basic intelligence is possible". Thus, according to Russell and Norvig, "most AI researchers take the weak AI hypothesis for given, and don't care about the strong AI hypothesis." [130] Thus, for academic AI research study, "Strong AI" and "AGI" are two different things.

Consciousness

Consciousness can have different meanings, and some aspects play considerable functions in science fiction and the ethics of artificial intelligence:

Sentience (or "extraordinary awareness"): The ability to "feel" understandings or feelings subjectively, as opposed to the capability to factor about understandings. Some thinkers, such as David Chalmers, use the term "consciousness" to refer specifically to extraordinary awareness, which is approximately comparable to life. [132] Determining why and how subjective experience occurs is called the tough problem of consciousness. [133] Thomas Nagel discussed in 1974 that it "feels like" something to be conscious. If we are not mindful, then it doesn't seem like anything. Nagel utilizes the example of a bat: we can smartly ask "what does it feel like to be a bat?" However, we are not likely to ask "what does it feel like to be a toaster?" Nagel concludes that a bat seems conscious (i.e., has awareness) however a toaster does not. [134] In 2022, a Google engineer declared that the business's AI chatbot, LaMDA, had actually achieved life, though this claim was commonly contested by other specialists. [135]

Self-awareness: To have conscious awareness of oneself as a different person, particularly to be knowingly knowledgeable about one's own ideas. This is opposed to merely being the "topic of one's thought"-an operating system or debugger has the ability to be "mindful of itself" (that is, to represent itself in the very same way it represents whatever else)-but this is not what individuals typically mean when they use the term "self-awareness". [g]

These traits have an ethical dimension. AI sentience would generate issues of well-being and legal security, likewise to animals. [136] Other aspects of consciousness associated to cognitive abilities are likewise appropriate to the principle of AI rights. [137] Figuring out how to integrate sophisticated AI with existing legal and social structures is an emerging problem. [138]

Benefits

AGI could have a wide range of applications. If oriented towards such goals, AGI could assist alleviate various problems worldwide such as hunger, poverty and health problems. [139]

AGI could improve efficiency and effectiveness in many jobs. For example, in public health, AGI could accelerate medical research study, significantly versus cancer. [140] It might take care of the senior, [141] and equalize access to fast, top quality medical diagnostics. It might provide enjoyable, low-cost and tailored education. [141] The need to work to subsist could become outdated if the wealth produced is appropriately rearranged. [141] [142] This likewise raises the question of the place of humans in a drastically automated society.

AGI could also help to make rational decisions, and to anticipate and prevent catastrophes. It could likewise assist to reap the benefits of possibly catastrophic innovations such as nanotechnology or climate engineering, while preventing the associated threats. [143] If an AGI's main objective is to prevent existential disasters such as human extinction (which could be hard if the Vulnerable World Hypothesis turns out to be real), [144] it could take procedures to dramatically minimize the risks [143] while lessening the effect of these procedures on our quality of life.

Risks

Existential dangers

AGI might represent multiple kinds of existential threat, which are threats that threaten "the early extinction of Earth-originating intelligent life or the long-term and extreme destruction of its potential for desirable future advancement". [145] The danger of human extinction from AGI has actually been the subject of numerous disputes, however there is likewise the possibility that the advancement of AGI would cause a completely problematic future. Notably, it might be utilized to spread and maintain the set of worths of whoever establishes it. If humankind still has moral blind spots comparable to slavery in the past, AGI might irreversibly entrench it, preventing ethical progress. [146] Furthermore, AGI could assist in mass surveillance and brainwashing, which might be utilized to develop a steady repressive worldwide totalitarian program. [147] [148] There is also a risk for the makers themselves. If machines that are sentient or otherwise deserving of ethical consideration are mass created in the future, taking part in a civilizational course that forever overlooks their welfare and interests could be an existential disaster. [149] [150] Considering how much AGI could enhance mankind's future and help reduce other existential risks, Toby Ord calls these existential dangers "an argument for continuing with due care", not for "abandoning AI". [147]

Risk of loss of control and human extinction

The thesis that AI positions an existential threat for humans, and that this threat requires more attention, is questionable however has been backed in 2023 by lots of public figures, AI scientists and CEOs of AI business such as Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Geoffrey Hinton, Yoshua Bengio, Demis Hassabis and Sam Altman. [151] [152]

In 2014, Stephen Hawking criticized prevalent indifference:

So, dealing with possible futures of enormous benefits and threats, the professionals are undoubtedly doing everything possible to ensure the very best outcome, right? Wrong. If an exceptional alien civilisation sent us a message stating, 'We'll show up in a few years,' would we simply respond, 'OK, call us when you get here-we'll leave the lights on?' Probably not-but this is more or less what is taking place with AI. [153]

The possible fate of mankind has actually often been compared to the fate of gorillas threatened by human activities. The comparison specifies that greater intelligence allowed humankind to control gorillas, which are now susceptible in ways that they might not have expected. As an outcome, the gorilla has ended up being a threatened species, not out of malice, but simply as a civilian casualties from human activities. [154]

The skeptic Yann LeCun thinks about that AGIs will have no desire to dominate mankind which we should beware not to anthropomorphize them and translate their intents as we would for human beings. He stated that people won't be "clever enough to design super-intelligent makers, yet unbelievably dumb to the point of offering it moronic goals with no safeguards". [155] On the other side, the principle of crucial merging recommends that almost whatever their goals, smart representatives will have factors to attempt to survive and obtain more power as intermediary actions to achieving these goals. And that this does not need having feelings. [156]

Many scholars who are worried about existential risk supporter for more research study into fixing the "control issue" to address the concern: what types of safeguards, algorithms, or architectures can developers execute to maximise the possibility that their recursively-improving AI would continue to act in a friendly, instead of harmful, way after it reaches superintelligence? [157] [158] Solving the control problem is made complex by the AI arms race (which could cause a race to the bottom of security precautions in order to release items before rivals), [159] and making use of AI in weapon systems. [160]

The thesis that AI can position existential danger also has detractors. Skeptics typically state that AGI is not likely in the short-term, or that issues about AGI sidetrack from other problems related to existing AI. [161] Former Google fraud czar Shuman Ghosemajumder considers that for lots of people beyond the innovation market, existing chatbots and LLMs are currently perceived as though they were AGI, leading to further misunderstanding and worry. [162]

Skeptics sometimes charge that the thesis is crypto-religious, with an illogical belief in the possibility of superintelligence replacing an irrational belief in an omnipotent God. [163] Some scientists believe that the communication campaigns on AI existential threat by specific AI groups (such as OpenAI, Anthropic, DeepMind, and Conjecture) might be an at effort at regulative capture and to inflate interest in their products. [164] [165]

In 2023, the CEOs of Google DeepMind, OpenAI and Anthropic, in addition to other market leaders and scientists, provided a joint declaration asserting that "Mitigating the danger of termination from AI ought to be a worldwide concern along with other societal-scale dangers such as pandemics and nuclear war." [152]

Mass unemployment

Researchers from OpenAI estimated that "80% of the U.S. workforce could have at least 10% of their work jobs affected by the intro of LLMs, while around 19% of employees may see a minimum of 50% of their jobs affected". [166] [167] They think about workplace employees to be the most exposed, for instance mathematicians, accounting professionals or web designers. [167] AGI could have a much better autonomy, ability to make decisions, to interface with other computer system tools, but likewise to manage robotized bodies.

According to Stephen Hawking, the result of automation on the lifestyle will depend on how the wealth will be redistributed: [142]

Everyone can delight in a life of luxurious leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or a lot of people can wind up miserably poor if the machine-owners successfully lobby versus wealth redistribution. So far, the trend appears to be towards the 2nd option, with innovation driving ever-increasing inequality

Elon Musk thinks about that the automation of society will need governments to adopt a universal fundamental earnings. [168]

See also

Artificial brain - Software and hardware with cognitive abilities similar to those of the animal or human brain
AI result
AI security - Research area on making AI safe and helpful
AI alignment - AI conformance to the designated objective
A.I. Rising - 2018 movie directed by Lazar Bodroža
Expert system
Automated artificial intelligence - Process of automating the application of artificial intelligence
BRAIN Initiative - Collaborative public-private research study effort announced by the Obama administration
China Brain Project
Future of Humanity Institute - Defunct Oxford interdisciplinary research centre
General video game playing - Ability of expert system to play various games
Generative artificial intelligence - AI system capable of producing material in reaction to prompts
Human Brain Project - Scientific research task
Intelligence amplification - Use of information innovation to enhance human intelligence (IA).
Machine principles - Moral behaviours of manufactured machines.
Moravec's paradox.
Multi-task learning - Solving several machine finding out tasks at the same time.
Neural scaling law - Statistical law in maker knowing.
Outline of synthetic intelligence - Overview of and topical guide to synthetic intelligence.
Transhumanism - Philosophical movement.
Synthetic intelligence - Alternate term for or form of expert system.
Transfer knowing - Artificial intelligence strategy.
Loebner Prize - Annual AI competition.
Hardware for artificial intelligence - Hardware specially developed and enhanced for synthetic intelligence.
Weak expert system - Form of artificial intelligence.


Notes

^ a b See below for the origin of the term "strong AI", and see the academic meaning of "strong AI" and weak AI in the post Chinese room.
^ AI founder John McCarthy composes: "we can not yet characterize in general what sort of computational treatments we wish to call smart. " [26] (For a discussion of some definitions of intelligence utilized by expert system researchers, see approach of expert system.).
^ The Lighthill report specifically criticized AI's "grand goals" and led the taking apart of AI research study in England. [55] In the U.S., DARPA became determined to fund just "mission-oriented direct research study, rather than basic undirected research". [56] [57] ^ As AI creator John McCarthy writes "it would be an excellent relief to the rest of the employees in AI if the developers of brand-new basic formalisms would reveal their hopes in a more secured kind than has actually sometimes held true." [61] ^ In "Mind Children" [122] 1015 cps is utilized. More recently, in 1997, [123] Moravec argued for 108 MIPS which would roughly correspond to 1014 cps. Moravec talks in regards to MIPS, not "cps", which is a non-standard term Kurzweil presented.
^ As specified in a standard AI book: "The assertion that machines might possibly act wisely (or, possibly much better, act as if they were intelligent) is called the 'weak AI' hypothesis by thinkers, and the assertion that machines that do so are actually thinking (instead of imitating thinking) is called the 'strong AI' hypothesis." [121] ^ Alan Turing made this point in 1950. [36] References

^ Krishna, Sri (9 February 2023). "What is synthetic narrow intelligence (ANI)?". VentureBeat. Retrieved 1 March 2024. ANI is created to carry out a single task.
^ "OpenAI Charter". OpenAI. Retrieved 6 April 2023. Our objective is to guarantee that artificial basic intelligence benefits all of mankind.
^ Heath, Alex (18 January 2024). "Mark Zuckerberg's brand-new objective is developing synthetic general intelligence". The Verge. Retrieved 13 June 2024. Our vision is to construct AI that is better than human-level at all of the human senses.
^ Baum, Seth D. (2020 ). A Survey of Artificial General Intelligence Projects for Ethics, Risk, and Policy (PDF) (Report). Global Catastrophic Risk Institute. Retrieved 28 November 2024. 72 AGI R&D jobs were identified as being active in 2020.
^ a b c "AI timelines: What do specialists in artificial intelligence expect for the future?". Our World in Data. Retrieved 6 April 2023.
^ Metz, Cade (15 May 2023). "Some Researchers Say A.I. Is Already Here, Stirring Debate in Tech Circles". The New York City Times. Retrieved 18 May 2023.
^ "AI leader Geoffrey Hinton gives up Google and cautions of danger ahead". The New York City Times. 1 May 2023. Retrieved 2 May 2023. It is hard to see how you can avoid the bad stars from using it for bad things.
^ Bubeck, Sébastien; Chandrasekaran, Varun; Eldan, Ronen; Gehrke, Johannes; Horvitz, Eric (2023 ). "Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early try outs GPT-4". arXiv preprint. arXiv:2303.12712. GPT-4 shows stimulates of AGI.
^ Butler, Octavia E. (1993 ). Parable of the Sower. Grand Central Publishing. ISBN 978-0-4466-7550-5. All that you touch you change. All that you change modifications you.
^ Vinge, Vernor (1992 ). A Fire Upon the Deep. Tor Books. ISBN 978-0-8125-1528-2. The Singularity is coming.
^ Morozov, Evgeny (30 June 2023). "The True Threat of Expert System". The New York Times. The genuine risk is not AI itself but the way we release it.
^ "Impressed by artificial intelligence? Experts state AGI is following, and it has 'existential' threats". ABC News. 23 March 2023. Retrieved 6 April 2023. AGI might posture existential threats to humanity.
^ Bostrom, Nick (2014 ). Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-1996-7811-2. The first superintelligence will be the last development that mankind needs to make.
^ Roose, Kevin (30 May 2023). "A.I. Poses 'Risk of Extinction,' Industry Leaders Warn". The New York City Times. Mitigating the threat of extinction from AI need to be an international concern.
^ "Statement on AI Risk". Center for AI Safety. Retrieved 1 March 2024. AI specialists caution of threat of termination from AI.
^ Mitchell, Melanie (30 May 2023). "Are AI's Doomsday Scenarios Worth Taking Seriously?". The New York Times. We are far from developing makers that can outthink us in general methods.
^ LeCun, Yann (June 2023). "AGI does not provide an existential danger". Medium. There is no factor to fear AI as an existential threat.
^ Kurzweil 2005, p. 260.
^ a b Kurzweil, Ray (5 August 2005), "Long Live AI", Forbes, archived from the initial on 14 August 2005: Kurzweil explains strong AI as "machine intelligence with the full variety of human intelligence.".
^ "The Age of Expert System: George John at TEDxLondonBusinessSchool 2013". Archived from the original on 26 February 2014. Retrieved 22 February 2014.
^ Newell & Simon 1976, This is the term they utilize for "human-level" intelligence in the physical symbol system hypothesis.
^ "The Open University on Strong and Weak AI". Archived from the original on 25 September 2009. Retrieved 8 October 2007.
^ "What is synthetic superintelligence (ASI)?|Definition from TechTarget". Enterprise AI. Retrieved 8 October 2023.
^ "Artificial intelligence is transforming our world - it is on everybody to make certain that it goes well". Our World in Data. Retrieved 8 October 2023.
^ Dickson, Ben (16 November 2023). "Here is how far we are to achieving AGI, according to DeepMind". VentureBeat.
^ McCarthy, John (2007a). "Basic Questions". Stanford University. Archived from the original on 26 October 2007. Retrieved 6 December 2007.
^ This list of intelligent qualities is based on the topics covered by significant AI textbooks, consisting of: Russell & Norvig 2003, Luger & Stubblefield 2004, Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998 and Nilsson 1998.
^ Johnson 1987.
^ de Charms, R. (1968 ). Personal causation. New York City: Academic Press.
^ a b Pfeifer, R. and Bongard J. C., How the body forms the method we think: a new view of intelligence (The MIT Press, 2007). ISBN 0-2621-6239-3.
^ White, R. W. (1959 ). "Motivation reevaluated: The principle of competence". Psychological Review. 66 (5 ): 297-333. doi:10.1037/ h0040934. PMID 13844397. S2CID 37385966.
^ White, R. W. (1959 ). "Motivation reconsidered: The idea of proficiency". Psychological Review. 66 (5 ): 297-333. doi:10.1037/ h0040934. PMID 13844397. S2CID 37385966.
^ Muehlhauser, Luke (11 August 2013). "What is AGI?". Machine Intelligence Research Institute. Archived from the original on 25 April 2014. Retrieved 1 May 2014.
^ "What is Artificial General Intelligence (AGI)?|4 Tests For Ensuring Artificial General Intelligence". Talky Blog. 13 July 2019. Archived from the initial on 17 July 2019. Retrieved 17 July 2019.
^ Kirk-Giannini, Cameron Domenico; Goldstein, Simon (16 October 2023). "AI is closer than ever to passing the Turing test for 'intelligence'. What happens when it does?". The Conversation. Retrieved 22 September 2024.
^ a b Turing 1950.
^ Turing, Alan (1952 ). B. Jack Copeland (ed.). Can Automatic Calculating Machines Be Said To Think?. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 487-506. ISBN 978-0-1982-5079-1.
^ "Eugene Goostman is a real boy - the Turing Test states so". The Guardian. 9 June 2014. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 3 March 2024.
^ "Scientists contest whether computer 'Eugene Goostman' passed Turing test". BBC News. 9 June 2014. Retrieved 3 March 2024.
^ Jones, Cameron R.; Bergen, Benjamin K. (9 May 2024). "People can not differentiate GPT-4 from a human in a Turing test". arXiv:2405.08007 [cs.HC]
^ Varanasi, Lakshmi (21 March 2023). "AI designs like ChatGPT and GPT-4 are acing whatever from the bar exam to AP Biology. Here's a list of tough examinations both AI versions have actually passed". Business Insider. Retrieved 30 May 2023.
^ Naysmith, Caleb (7 February 2023). "6 Jobs Expert System Is Already Replacing and How Investors Can Capitalize on It". Retrieved 30 May 2023.
^ Turk, Victoria (28 January 2015). "The Plan to Replace the Turing Test with a 'Turing Olympics'". Vice. Retrieved 3 March 2024.
^ Gopani, Avi (25 May 2022). "Turing Test is undependable. The Winograd Schema is outdated. Coffee is the answer". Analytics India Magazine. Retrieved 3 March 2024.
^ Bhaimiya, Sawdah (20 June 2023). "DeepMind's co-founder suggested evaluating an AI chatbot's ability to turn $100,000 into $1 million to determine human-like intelligence". Business Insider. Retrieved 3 March 2024.
^ Suleyman, Mustafa (14 July 2023). "Mustafa Suleyman: My brand-new Turing test would see if AI can make $1 million". MIT Technology Review. Retrieved 3 March 2024.
^ Shapiro, Stuart C. (1992 ). "Expert System" (PDF). In Stuart C. Shapiro (ed.). Encyclopedia of Expert System (Second ed.). New York: John Wiley. pp. 54-57. Archived (PDF) from the initial on 1 February 2016. (Section 4 is on "AI-Complete Tasks".).
^ Yampolskiy, Roman V. (2012 ). Xin-She Yang (ed.). "Turing Test as a Defining Feature of AI-Completeness" (PDF). Artificial Intelligence, Evolutionary Computation and Metaheuristics (AIECM): 3-17. Archived (PDF) from the original on 22 May 2013.
^ "AI Index: State of AI in 13 Charts". Stanford University Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence. 15 April 2024. Retrieved 27 May 2024.
^ Crevier 1993, pp. 48-50.
^ Kaplan, Andreas (2022 ). "Expert System, Business and Civilization - Our Fate Made in Machines". Archived from the initial on 6 May 2022. Retrieved 12 March 2022.
^ Simon 1965, p. 96 estimated in Crevier 1993, p. 109.
^ "Scientist on the Set: An Interview with Marvin Minsky". Archived from the initial on 16 July 2012. Retrieved 5 April 2008.
^ Marvin Minsky to Darrach (1970 ), estimated in Crevier (1993, p. 109).
^ Lighthill 1973; Howe 1994.
^ a b NRC 1999, "Shift to Applied Research Increases Investment".
^ Crevier 1993, pp. 115-117; Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 21-22.
^ Crevier 1993, p. 211, Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 24 and see also Feigenbaum & McCorduck 1983.
^ Crevier 1993, pp. 161-162, 197-203, 240; Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 25.
^ Crevier 1993, pp. 209-212.
^ McCarthy, John (2000 ). "Reply to Lighthill". Stanford University. Archived from the initial on 30 September 2008. Retrieved 29 September 2007.
^ Markoff, John (14 October 2005). "Behind Expert system, a Squadron of Bright Real People". The New York City Times. Archived from the initial on 2 February 2023. Retrieved 18 February 2017. At its low point, some computer scientists and software application engineers prevented the term artificial intelligence for fear of being seen as wild-eyed dreamers.
^ Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 25-26
^ "Trends in the Emerging Tech Hype Cycle". Gartner Reports. Archived from the original on 22 May 2019. Retrieved 7 May 2019.
^ a b Moravec 1988, p. 20
^ Harnad, S. (1990 ). "The Symbol Grounding Problem". Physica D. 42 (1-3): 335-346. arXiv: cs/9906002. Bibcode:1990 PhyD ... 42..335 H. doi:10.1016/ 0167-2789( 90 )90087-6. S2CID 3204300.
^ Gubrud 1997
^ Hutter, Marcus (2005 ). Universal Artificial Intelligence: Sequential Decisions Based Upon Algorithmic Probability. Texts in Theoretical Computer Science an EATCS Series. Springer. doi:10.1007/ b138233. ISBN 978-3-5402-6877-2. S2CID 33352850. Archived from the original on 19 July 2022. Retrieved 19 July 2022.
^ Legg, Shane (2008 ). Machine Super Intelligence (PDF) (Thesis). University of Lugano. Archived (PDF) from the original on 15 June 2022. Retrieved 19 July 2022.
^ Goertzel, Ben (2014 ). Artificial General Intelligence. Lecture Notes in Computer Technology. Vol. 8598. Journal of Artificial General Intelligence. doi:10.1007/ 978-3-319-09274-4. ISBN 978-3-3190-9273-7. S2CID 8387410.
^ "Who coined the term "AGI"?". goertzel.org. Archived from the initial on 28 December 2018. Retrieved 28 December 2018., by means of Life 3.0: 'The term "AGI" was popularized by ... Shane Legg, Mark Gubrud and Ben Goertzel'
^ Wang & Goertzel 2007
^ "First International Summer School in Artificial General Intelligence, Main summertime school: June 22 - July 3, 2009, OpenCog Lab: July 6-9, 2009". Archived from the original on 28 September 2020. Retrieved 11 May 2020.
^ "Избираеми дисциплини 2009/2010 - пролетен триместър" [Elective courses 2009/2010 - spring trimester] Факултет по математика и информатика [Faculty of Mathematics and Informatics] (in Bulgarian). Archived from the original on 26 July 2020. Retrieved 11 May 2020.
^ "Избираеми дисциплини 2010/2011 - зимен триместър" [Elective courses 2010/2011 - winter trimester] Факултет по математика и информатика [Faculty of Mathematics and Informatics] (in Bulgarian). Archived from the original on 26 July 2020. Retrieved 11 May 2020.
^ Shevlin, Henry; Vold, Karina; Crosby, Matthew; Halina, Marta (4 October 2019). "The limits of maker intelligence: Despite development in maker intelligence, artificial basic intelligence is still a major difficulty". EMBO Reports. 20 (10 ): e49177. doi:10.15252/ embr.201949177. ISSN 1469-221X. PMC 6776890. PMID 31531926.
^ Bubeck, Sébastien; Chandrasekaran, Varun; Eldan, Ronen; Gehrke, Johannes; Horvitz, Eric; Kamar, Ece; Lee, Peter; Lee, Yin Tat; Li, Yuanzhi; Lundberg, Scott; Nori, Harsha; Palangi, Hamid; Ribeiro, Marco Tulio; Zhang, Yi (27 March 2023). "Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early explores GPT-4". arXiv:2303.12712 [cs.CL]
^ "Microsoft Researchers Claim GPT-4 Is Showing "Sparks" of AGI". Futurism. 23 March 2023. Retrieved 13 December 2023.
^ Allen, Paul; Greaves, Mark (12 October 2011). "The Singularity Isn't Near". MIT Technology Review. Retrieved 17 September 2014.
^ Winfield, Alan. "Expert system will not turn into a Frankenstein's beast". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 17 September 2014. Retrieved 17 September 2014.
^ Deane, George (2022 ). "Machines That Feel and Think: The Role of Affective Feelings and Mental Action in (Artificial) General Intelligence". Artificial Life. 28 (3 ): 289-309. doi:10.1162/ artl_a_00368. ISSN 1064-5462. PMID 35881678. S2CID 251069071.
^ a b c Clocksin 2003.
^ Fjelland, Ragnar (17 June 2020). "Why general artificial intelligence will not be recognized". Humanities and Social Sciences Communications. 7 (1 ): 1-9. doi:10.1057/ s41599-020-0494-4. hdl:11250/ 2726984. ISSN 2662-9992. S2CID 219710554.
^ McCarthy 2007b.
^ Khatchadourian, Raffi (23 November 2015). "The Doomsday Invention: Will synthetic intelligence bring us utopia or damage?". The New Yorker. Archived from the original on 28 January 2016. Retrieved 7 February 2016.
^ Müller, V. C., & Bostrom, N. (2016 ). Future progress in artificial intelligence: A survey of expert viewpoint. In Fundamental issues of synthetic intelligence (pp. 555-572). Springer, Cham.
^ Armstrong, Stuart, and Kaj Sotala. 2012. "How We're Predicting AI-or Failing To." In Beyond AI: Artificial Dreams, edited by Jan Romportl, Pavel Ircing, Eva Žáčková, Michal Polák and Radek Schuster, 52-75. Plzeň: University of West Bohemia
^ "Microsoft Now Claims GPT-4 Shows 'Sparks' of General Intelligence". 24 March 2023.
^ Shimek, Cary (6 July 2023). "AI Outperforms Humans in Creativity Test". Neuroscience News. Retrieved 20 October 2023.
^ Guzik, Erik E.; Byrge, Christian; Gilde, Christian (1 December 2023). "The originality of makers: AI takes the Torrance Test". Journal of Creativity. 33 (3 ): 100065. doi:10.1016/ j.yjoc.2023.100065. ISSN 2713-3745. S2CID 261087185.
^ Arcas, Blaise Agüera y (10 October 2023). "Artificial General Intelligence Is Already Here". Noema.
^ Zia, Tehseen (8 January 2024). "Unveiling of Large Multimodal Models: Shaping the Landscape of Language Models in 2024". Unite.ai. Retrieved 26 May 2024.
^ "Introducing OpenAI o1-preview". OpenAI. 12 September 2024.
^ Knight, Will. "OpenAI Announces a Brand-new AI Model, Code-Named Strawberry, That Solves Difficult Problems Step by Step". Wired. ISSN 1059-1028. Retrieved 17 September 2024.
^ "OpenAI Employee Claims AGI Has Been Achieved". Orbital Today. 13 December 2024. Retrieved 27 December 2024.
^ "AI Index: State of AI in 13 Charts". hai.stanford.edu. 15 April 2024. Retrieved 7 June 2024.
^ "Next-Gen AI: OpenAI and Meta's Leap Towards Reasoning Machines". Unite.ai. 19 April 2024. Retrieved 7 June 2024.
^ James, Alex P. (2022 ). "The Why, What, and How of Artificial General Intelligence Chip Development". IEEE Transactions on Cognitive and Developmental Systems. 14 (2 ): 333-347. arXiv:2012.06338. doi:10.1109/ TCDS.2021.3069871. ISSN 2379-8920. S2CID 228376556. Archived from the initial on 28 August 2022. Retrieved 28 August 2022.
^ Pei, Jing; Deng, Lei; Song, Sen; Zhao, Mingguo; Zhang, Youhui; Wu, Shuang; Wang, Guanrui; Zou, Zhe; Wu, Zhenzhi; He, Wei; Chen, Feng;