Artificial general intelligence (AGI) is a type of expert system (AI) that matches or goes beyond human cognitive abilities across a wide variety of cognitive jobs. This contrasts with narrow AI, which is limited to particular jobs. [1] Artificial superintelligence (ASI), on the other hand, refers to AGI that greatly goes beyond human cognitive capabilities. AGI is considered one of the definitions of strong AI.

Creating AGI is a main goal of AI research study and of companies such as OpenAI [2] and Meta. [3] A 2020 survey identified 72 active AGI research study and development jobs across 37 nations. [4]

The timeline for accomplishing AGI stays a topic of ongoing dispute among scientists and experts. Since 2023, some argue that it may be possible in years or decades; others maintain it might take a century or longer; a minority think it may never be achieved; and another minority claims that it is currently here. [5] [6] Notable AI scientist Geoffrey Hinton has revealed issues about the fast progress towards AGI, recommending it could be accomplished sooner than numerous anticipate. [7]

There is debate on the precise meaning of AGI and relating to whether modern big language models (LLMs) such as GPT-4 are early forms of AGI. [8] AGI is a typical topic in science fiction and futures studies. [9] [10]

Contention exists over whether AGI represents an existential risk. [11] [12] [13] Many specialists on AI have actually specified that reducing the threat of human termination positioned by AGI must be a worldwide priority. [14] [15] Others find the development of AGI to be too remote to provide such a danger. [16] [17]

Terminology

AGI is likewise known as strong AI, [18] [19] full AI, [20] human-level AI, [5] human-level intelligent AI, or basic intelligent action. [21]

Some academic sources book the term "strong AI" for computer programs that experience life or awareness. [a] In contrast, weak AI (or narrow AI) has the ability to resolve one particular problem however lacks general cognitive abilities. [22] [19] Some scholastic sources use "weak AI" to refer more broadly to any programs that neither experience awareness nor have a mind in the very same sense as humans. [a]

Related ideas include synthetic superintelligence and transformative AI. A synthetic superintelligence (ASI) is a hypothetical type of AGI that is much more typically smart than human beings, [23] while the notion of transformative AI associates with AI having a large influence on society, for instance, comparable to the agricultural or industrial transformation. [24]

A structure for classifying AGI in levels was proposed in 2023 by Google DeepMind researchers. They define 5 levels of AGI: emerging, qualified, professional, virtuoso, and superhuman. For instance, a qualified AGI is specified as an AI that exceeds 50% of proficient adults in a vast array of non-physical jobs, and a superhuman AGI (i.e. an artificial superintelligence) is similarly specified but with a threshold of 100%. They think about large language models like ChatGPT or LLaMA 2 to be circumstances of emerging AGI. [25]

Characteristics

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

Intelligence qualities

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

factor, usage strategy, solve puzzles, and make judgments under unpredictability
represent knowledge, consisting of typical sense knowledge
plan
find out
- communicate in natural language
- if necessary, integrate these abilities in conclusion of any provided objective


Many interdisciplinary approaches (e.g. cognitive science, computational intelligence, and decision making) think about additional qualities such as imagination (the ability to form novel mental images and concepts) [28] and autonomy. [29]

Computer-based systems that exhibit much of these abilities exist (e.g. see computational imagination, automated reasoning, choice support system, robotic, evolutionary computation, intelligent agent). There is argument about whether modern AI systems possess them to an adequate degree.

Physical traits

Other abilities are thought about preferable in intelligent systems, as they may affect intelligence or help in its expression. These include: [30]

- the ability to sense (e.g. see, hear, etc), and
- the ability to act (e.g. move and manipulate items, change area to explore, etc).


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

Although the ability to sense (e.g. see, hear, and so on) and the ability to act (e.g. relocation and manipulate things, modification location to check out, and so on) can be desirable for some smart systems, [30] these physical abilities are not strictly required for an entity to qualify as AGI-particularly under the thesis that big language models (LLMs) might already be or end up being AGI. Even from a less optimistic viewpoint on LLMs, there is no company requirement for timeoftheworld.date an AGI to have a human-like type; being a silicon-based computational system is enough, provided it can process input (language) from the external world in place of human senses. This interpretation lines up with the understanding that AGI has never ever been proscribed a specific physical personification and hence does not demand a capability for locomotion or traditional "eyes and ears". [32]

Tests for human-level AGI

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

The concept of the test is that the device has to attempt and pretend to be a male, by addressing questions put to it, and it will just pass if the pretence is fairly convincing. A considerable portion of a jury, who need to not be expert about machines, 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 solve it, one would need to implement AGI, since the service is beyond the abilities of a purpose-specific algorithm. [47]

There are lots of issues that have actually been conjectured to need basic intelligence to solve in addition to people. Examples include computer system vision, natural language understanding, and dealing with unanticipated situations while solving any real-world problem. [48] Even a specific job like translation requires a maker to read and write in both languages, follow the author's argument (factor), comprehend the context (knowledge), and faithfully recreate the author's initial intent (social intelligence). All of these issues require to be resolved all at once in order to reach human-level maker performance.

However, much of these tasks can now be performed by contemporary big language designs. According to Stanford University's 2024 AI index, AI has actually reached human-level efficiency on lots of standards for reading comprehension and visual reasoning. [49]

History

Classical AI

Modern AI research began in the mid-1950s. [50] The first generation of AI researchers were persuaded that synthetic basic intelligence was possible which it would exist in simply a few years. [51] AI leader Herbert A. Simon composed in 1965: "makers will be capable, within twenty years, of doing any work a guy can do." [52]

Their forecasts were the motivation for Stanley Kubrick and addsub.wiki Arthur C. Clarke's character HAL 9000, who embodied what AI researchers thought they might create by the year 2001. AI leader Marvin Minsky was an expert [53] on the job of making HAL 9000 as reasonable as possible according to the agreement predictions of the time. He said in 1967, "Within a generation ... the problem of developing 'artificial intelligence' will significantly be fixed". [54]

Several classical AI tasks, 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 became obvious that scientists had grossly undervalued the trouble of the task. Funding firms ended up being hesitant of AGI and put researchers under increasing pressure to produce beneficial "used AI". [c] In the early 1980s, Japan's Fifth Generation Computer Project restored interest in AGI, setting out a ten-year timeline that consisted of AGI goals like "continue a table talk". [58] In action to this and the success of professional systems, both market and government pumped money into the field. [56] [59] However, self-confidence in AI marvelously collapsed in the late 1980s, and the goals of the Fifth Generation Computer Project were never ever fulfilled. [60] For the second time in twenty years, AI researchers who anticipated the imminent achievement of AGI had actually been mistaken. By the 1990s, AI researchers had a credibility 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 identified "wild-eyed dreamer [s]. [62]

Narrow AI research

In the 1990s and early 21st century, mainstream AI accomplished commercial success and scholastic respectability by concentrating on specific sub-problems where AI can produce verifiable outcomes and commercial applications, such as speech recognition and recommendation algorithms. [63] These "applied AI" systems are now used thoroughly throughout the innovation market, and research study in this vein is greatly moneyed in both academia and market. As of 2018 [update], advancement in this field was considered an emerging trend, and a fully grown phase was anticipated to be reached in more than 10 years. [64]

At the turn of the century, lots of 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 positive that this bottom-up path to synthetic intelligence will one day meet the conventional top-down route more than half way, prepared to provide the real-world proficiency and the commonsense understanding that has actually been so frustratingly evasive in thinking programs. Fully smart makers will result when the metaphorical golden spike is driven unifying the two efforts. [65]

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

The expectation has actually frequently been voiced that "top-down" (symbolic) approaches to modeling cognition will somehow fulfill "bottom-up" (sensory) approaches someplace in between. If the grounding factors to consider in this paper stand, then this expectation is hopelessly modular and there is actually just one viable route from sense to signs: from the ground up. A free-floating symbolic level like the software application level of a computer system will never ever be reached by this route (or vice versa) - nor is it clear why we should even attempt to reach such a level, given that it appears arriving would just total up to uprooting our signs from their intrinsic significances (thereby simply reducing ourselves to the practical equivalent of a programmable computer). [66]

Modern artificial general intelligence research study

The term "artificial basic intelligence" was utilized as early as 1997, by Mark Gubrud [67] in a discussion of the implications of totally automated military production and operations. A mathematical formalism of AGI was proposed by Marcus Hutter in 2000. Named AIXI, the proposed AGI agent increases "the ability to please goals in a vast array of environments". [68] This type of AGI, characterized by the capability to maximise a mathematical meaning of intelligence instead of display human-like behaviour, [69] was also called universal expert system. [70]

The term AGI was re-introduced and popularized by Shane Legg and Ben Goertzel around 2002. [71] AGI research study activity in 2006 was described by Pei Wang and Ben Goertzel [72] as "producing publications and initial results". The first summer 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 offered in 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 guest speakers.

As of 2023 [upgrade], a little number of computer scientists are active in AGI research, and numerous contribute to a series of AGI conferences. However, increasingly more scientists are interested in open-ended learning, [76] [77] which is the concept of allowing AI to constantly learn and innovate like human beings do.

Feasibility

As of 2023, the development and possible achievement of AGI stays a subject of extreme dispute within the AI neighborhood. While conventional agreement held that AGI was a remote goal, recent developments have led some scientists and industry figures to declare that early kinds of AGI might currently exist. [78] AI pioneer Herbert A. Simon hypothesized in 1965 that "makers will be capable, within twenty years, of doing any work a male can do". This forecast failed to come real. Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen believed that such intelligence is not likely in the 21st century because it would need "unforeseeable and essentially unforeseeable advancements" and a "clinically deep understanding of cognition". [79] Writing in The Guardian, roboticist Alan Winfield declared the gulf in between modern-day computing and human-level artificial intelligence is as wide as the gulf between existing space flight and practical faster-than-light spaceflight. [80]

A more challenge is the absence of clarity in specifying what intelligence involves. Does it need awareness? Must it display the ability to set objectives as well as pursue them? Is it purely a matter of scale such that if design sizes increase sufficiently, intelligence will emerge? Are facilities such as planning, thinking, and causal understanding required? Does intelligence require explicitly reproducing the brain and its specific faculties? Does it require feelings? [81]

Most AI scientists believe strong AI can be attained in the future, however some thinkers, like Hubert Dreyfus and Roger Penrose, deny the possibility of accomplishing strong AI. [82] [83] John McCarthy is among those who believe human-level AI will be achieved, however that today level of development is such that a date can not properly be forecasted. [84] AI professionals' views on the feasibility of AGI wax and subside. Four polls conducted in 2012 and 2013 recommended that the average estimate among professionals for when they would be 50% positive AGI would show up was 2040 to 2050, depending upon the poll, with the mean being 2081. Of the experts, 16.5% addressed with "never ever" when asked the exact same question however with a 90% confidence rather. [85] [86] Further current AGI development factors to consider can be discovered above Tests for confirming human-level AGI.

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

In 2023, Microsoft researchers published a detailed assessment of GPT-4. They concluded: "Given the breadth and depth of GPT-4's abilities, we think that it might fairly be considered as an early (yet still insufficient) variation of an artificial general intelligence (AGI) system." [88] Another 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 general intelligence has actually currently been accomplished with frontier designs. They composed that hesitation to this view originates from 4 primary reasons: a "healthy skepticism about metrics for AGI", an "ideological dedication to alternative AI theories or strategies", a "devotion to human (or biological) exceptionalism", or a "concern about the financial implications of AGI". [91]

2023 also marked the development of big multimodal designs (big language models capable of processing or generating several methods such as text, audio, and images). [92]

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

An OpenAI worker, Vahid Kazemi, claimed in 2024 that the company had actually attained AGI, specifying, "In my opinion, we have currently achieved AGI and it's much more clear with O1." Kazemi clarified that while the AI is not yet "much better than any human at any task", it is "better than a lot of people at a lot of jobs." He also resolved criticisms that large language designs (LLMs) merely follow predefined patterns, comparing their knowing process to the scientific technique of observing, assuming, and confirming. These statements have actually sparked dispute, as they rely on a broad and unconventional definition of AGI-traditionally understood as AI that matches human intelligence throughout all domains. Critics argue that, while OpenAI's designs demonstrate remarkable versatility, they might not fully fulfill this standard. Notably, Kazemi's remarks came shortly after OpenAI removed "AGI" from the regards to its partnership with Microsoft, prompting speculation about the company's strategic intents. [95]

Timescales

Progress in expert system has historically gone through periods of quick progress separated by durations when development appeared to stop. [82] Ending each hiatus were basic advances in hardware, software or both to create area for further progress. [82] [98] [99] For example, the computer hardware offered in the twentieth century was not adequate to implement deep learning, which needs big numbers of GPU-enabled CPUs. [100]

In the intro to his 2006 book, [101] Goertzel states that price quotes of the time needed before a really flexible AGI is built differ from ten years to over a century. As of 2007 [upgrade], the consensus in the AGI research study neighborhood seemed to be that the timeline gone over by Ray Kurzweil in 2005 in The Singularity is Near [102] (i.e. between 2015 and 2045) was possible. [103] Mainstream AI researchers have offered a wide range of opinions on whether progress will be this quick. A 2012 meta-analysis of 95 such opinions found a predisposition towards forecasting that the start of AGI would occur within 16-26 years for modern and historical forecasts alike. That paper has been slammed for how it categorized viewpoints as professional or non-expert. [104]

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

In 2017, scientists Feng Liu, Yong Shi, and Ying Liu performed intelligence tests on openly readily available and easily accessible weak AI such as Google AI, Apple's Siri, and others. At the maximum, these AIs reached an IQ value of about 47, which corresponds approximately to a six-year-old child in very first grade. A grownup concerns about 100 on average. Similar tests were brought out in 2014, with the IQ score reaching an optimum value of 27. [106] [107]

In 2020, OpenAI established GPT-3, a language design efficient in carrying out numerous varied tasks without specific 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 considered by some to be too advanced to be categorized as a narrow AI system. [108]

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

In 2022, DeepMind developed Gato, a "general-purpose" system capable of carrying out more than 600 different tasks. [110]

In 2023, Microsoft Research published a research study on an early version of OpenAI's GPT-4, contending that it displayed more general intelligence than previous AI designs and demonstrated human-level efficiency in jobs spanning multiple domains, such as mathematics, coding, and law. This research study sparked a debate on whether GPT-4 could be considered an early, incomplete version of artificial basic intelligence, stressing the requirement for more exploration and assessment of such systems. [111]

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

The idea that this stuff could in fact get smarter than people - a few people thought that, [...] But many people believed it was method off. And I believed it was way off. I believed it was 30 to 50 years or perhaps longer away. Obviously, I no longer believe that.

In May 2023, Demis Hassabis similarly said that "The progress in the last couple of years has been quite unbelievable", which he sees no reason that it would decrease, anticipating AGI within a decade and even a few years. [113] In March 2024, Nvidia's CEO, Jensen Huang, mentioned his expectation that within five years, AI would be capable of passing any test at least as well as human beings. [114] In June 2024, the AI researcher Leopold Aschenbrenner, a former OpenAI employee, estimated AGI by 2027 to be "noticeably plausible". [115]

Whole brain emulation

While the advancement of transformer designs like in ChatGPT is thought about the most promising course to AGI, [116] [117] entire brain emulation can function as an alternative method. With entire brain simulation, a brain model is constructed by scanning and mapping a biological brain in detail, and after that copying and simulating it on a computer system or another computational device. The simulation model should be sufficiently devoted to the original, so that it acts in practically the very same method as the initial brain. [118] Whole brain emulation is a kind of brain simulation that is discussed in computational neuroscience and neuroinformatics, and for medical research study purposes. It has actually been gone over in synthetic intelligence research [103] as a method to strong AI. Neuroimaging technologies that could deliver the needed detailed understanding are improving rapidly, and futurist Ray Kurzweil in the book The Singularity Is Near [102] forecasts that a map of adequate quality will end up being readily available on a similar timescale to the computing power required to emulate it.

Early estimates

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

In 1997, Kurzweil looked at numerous quotes for the hardware required to equal the human brain and embraced a figure of 1016 calculations per 2nd (cps). [e] (For contrast, if a "computation" was equivalent to one "floating-point operation" - a measure utilized to rate current supercomputers - then 1016 "computations" would be equivalent to 10 petaFLOPS, attained in 2011, while 1018 was accomplished in 2022.) He used this figure to predict the required hardware would be offered sometime in between 2015 and 2025, if the rapid growth in computer system power at the time of writing continued.

Current research study

The Human Brain Project, an EU-funded effort active from 2013 to 2023, has actually developed a particularly comprehensive and openly accessible atlas of the human brain. [124] In 2023, scientists from Duke University carried out a high-resolution scan of a mouse brain.

Criticisms of simulation-based approaches

The synthetic neuron model assumed by Kurzweil and utilized in many current synthetic neural network implementations is easy compared to biological nerve cells. A brain simulation would likely need to capture the comprehensive cellular behaviour of biological neurons, currently comprehended just in broad outline. The overhead introduced by complete modeling of the biological, chemical, and physical information of neural behaviour (particularly on a molecular scale) would need computational powers several orders of magnitude larger than Kurzweil's price quote. In addition, the price quotes do not account for glial cells, which are understood to play a function in cognitive procedures. [125]

An essential criticism of the simulated brain method stems from embodied cognition theory which asserts that human embodiment is an essential aspect of human intelligence and is required to ground significance. [126] [127] If this theory is proper, any totally functional brain model will need to incorporate more than just the nerve cells (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 be enough.

Philosophical viewpoint

"Strong AI" as specified in philosophy

In 1980, thinker John Searle coined the term "strong AI" as part of his Chinese space argument. [128] He proposed a distinction between two hypotheses about synthetic intelligence: [f]

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


The very first one he called "strong" because it makes a more powerful statement: it assumes something unique has taken place to the maker that surpasses those abilities that we can test. The behaviour of a "weak AI" maker would be precisely identical to a "strong AI" machine, but the latter would also have subjective conscious experience. This use is also typical in academic AI research study and textbooks. [129]

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

Mainstream AI is most thinking about how a program acts. [131] According to Russell and Norvig, "as long as the program works, they don't care if you call it genuine or a simulation." [130] If the program can act as if it has a mind, then there is no requirement to know if it in fact has mind - certainly, there would be no other way to tell. For AI research study, Searle's "weak AI hypothesis" is equivalent to the statement "synthetic basic intelligence is possible". Thus, according to Russell and Norvig, "most AI researchers take the weak AI hypothesis for given, and do not care about the strong AI hypothesis." [130] Thus, for academic AI research study, "Strong AI" and "AGI" are 2 various things.

Consciousness

Consciousness can have numerous meanings, and some aspects play substantial functions in sci-fi and the principles of expert system:

Sentience (or "remarkable consciousness"): The ability to "feel" perceptions or feelings subjectively, instead of the ability to factor about perceptions. Some theorists, such as David Chalmers, utilize the term "awareness" to refer solely to incredible awareness, which is roughly equivalent to sentience. [132] Determining why and how subjective experience emerges is called the hard problem of awareness. [133] Thomas Nagel discussed in 1974 that it "feels like" something to be conscious. If we are not mindful, then it does not 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 unlikely to ask "what does it seem like to be a toaster?" Nagel concludes that a bat appears to be mindful (i.e., has consciousness) however a toaster does not. [134] In 2022, a Google engineer declared that the business's AI chatbot, LaMDA, had actually achieved sentience, though this claim was extensively contested by other professionals. [135]

Self-awareness: To have mindful awareness of oneself as a different person, specifically to be purposely familiar with one's own thoughts. This is opposed to just being the "subject of one's thought"-an os or debugger has the ability to be "knowledgeable about itself" (that is, to represent itself in the same method it represents everything else)-however this is not what people generally mean when they utilize the term "self-awareness". [g]

These characteristics have an ethical measurement. AI life would give increase to issues of welfare and legal security, likewise to animals. [136] Other aspects of consciousness related to cognitive abilities are likewise appropriate to the idea of AI rights. [137] Determining how to integrate sophisticated AI with existing legal and social structures is an emergent problem. [138]

Benefits

AGI could have a wide array of applications. If oriented towards such goals, AGI could help mitigate different problems on the planet such as cravings, hardship and illness. [139]

AGI could improve productivity and performance in the majority of 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 democratize access to rapid, premium medical diagnostics. It might use fun, inexpensive and tailored education. [141] The need to work to subsist could become outdated if the wealth produced is correctly redistributed. [141] [142] This likewise raises the question of the place of people in a drastically automated society.

AGI might likewise assist to make logical decisions, and to expect and prevent catastrophes. It could likewise help to profit of possibly devastating technologies such as nanotechnology or climate engineering, while avoiding the associated threats. [143] If an AGI's primary goal is to prevent existential disasters such as human extinction (which might be hard if the Vulnerable World Hypothesis turns out to be real), [144] it could take measures to drastically lower the risks [143] while reducing the impact of these steps on our lifestyle.

Risks

Existential threats

AGI may represent several kinds of existential threat, which are threats that threaten "the premature termination of Earth-originating smart life or the irreversible and extreme destruction of its capacity for preferable future advancement". [145] The threat of human extinction from AGI has actually been the subject of lots of debates, but there is also the possibility that the development of AGI would cause a permanently flawed future. Notably, it might be utilized to spread out and preserve the set of worths of whoever establishes it. If humankind still has ethical blind spots similar to slavery in the past, AGI might irreversibly entrench it, preventing ethical development. [146] Furthermore, AGI could assist in mass security and indoctrination, which might be used to produce a steady repressive around the world totalitarian routine. [147] [148] There is also a risk for the devices themselves. If makers that are sentient or otherwise worthwhile of moral factor to consider are mass created in the future, taking part in a civilizational course that indefinitely disregards their well-being and interests could be an existential disaster. [149] [150] Considering how much AGI might enhance humankind's future and help in reducing other existential dangers, Toby Ord calls these existential dangers "an argument for proceeding with due care", not for "deserting AI". [147]

Risk of loss of control and human termination

The thesis that AI presents an existential danger for people, which this risk requires more attention, is controversial however has been backed in 2023 by numerous public figures, AI researchers and CEOs of AI companies such as Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Geoffrey Hinton, Yoshua Bengio, Demis Hassabis and Sam Altman. [151] [152]

In 2014, Stephen Hawking slammed widespread indifference:

So, dealing with possible futures of enormous benefits and threats, the specialists are definitely doing whatever possible to guarantee the best outcome, right? Wrong. If a remarkable alien civilisation sent us a message stating, 'We'll show up in a few decades,' would we simply reply, 'OK, call us when you get here-we'll leave the lights on?' Probably not-but this is more or less what is occurring with AI. [153]

The possible fate of humankind has actually sometimes been compared to the fate of gorillas threatened by human activities. The contrast mentions that greater intelligence enabled humanity to control gorillas, which are now susceptible in ways that they could not have actually expected. As an outcome, the gorilla has become a threatened species, not out of malice, however simply as a collateral damage from human activities. [154]

The skeptic Yann LeCun thinks about that AGIs will have no desire to dominate humankind and that we should beware not to anthropomorphize them and translate their intents as we would for human beings. He stated that individuals will not be "clever sufficient to develop super-intelligent devices, yet ridiculously stupid to the point of providing it moronic objectives with no safeguards". [155] On the other side, the concept of critical merging suggests that almost whatever their objectives, smart representatives will have factors to try to survive and obtain more power as intermediary steps to accomplishing these goals. Which this does not need having feelings. [156]

Many scholars who are concerned about existential danger supporter for more research into solving the "control problem" to address the question: what kinds of safeguards, algorithms, or architectures can developers carry out to increase the probability that their recursively-improving AI would continue to behave in a friendly, rather than devastating, manner after it reaches superintelligence? [157] [158] Solving the control issue is made complex by the AI arms race (which might lead to a race to the bottom of security preventative measures in order to release items before rivals), [159] and the use of AI in weapon systems. [160]

The thesis that AI can position existential danger likewise has detractors. Skeptics typically say that AGI is unlikely in the short-term, or that issues about AGI distract from other problems related to current AI. [161] Former Google fraud czar Shuman Ghosemajumder thinks about that for lots of people beyond the innovation industry, 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 irrational belief in the possibility of superintelligence replacing an irrational belief in an omnipotent God. [163] Some researchers think that the interaction projects on AI existential risk by particular 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, together with other market leaders and scientists, issued a joint declaration asserting that "Mitigating the danger of termination from AI ought to be a worldwide priority alongside other societal-scale threats such as pandemics and nuclear war." [152]

Mass unemployment

Researchers from OpenAI estimated that "80% of the U.S. workforce might have at least 10% of their work jobs affected by the introduction of LLMs, while around 19% of workers may see at least 50% of their tasks affected". [166] [167] They consider office workers to be the most exposed, for instance mathematicians, accounting professionals or web designers. [167] AGI might have a better autonomy, capability to make decisions, to interface with other computer system tools, however also to control robotized bodies.

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

Everyone can enjoy a life of luxurious leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or the majority of people can wind up miserably bad if the machine-owners successfully lobby versus wealth redistribution. So far, the trend seems to be toward the second choice, with technology driving ever-increasing inequality

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

See also

Artificial brain - Software and hardware with cognitive abilities comparable to those of the animal or human brain
AI effect
AI safety - Research location on making AI safe and advantageous
AI positioning - AI conformance to the intended objective
A.I. Rising - 2018 movie directed by Lazar Bodroža
Artificial intelligence
Automated artificial intelligence - Process of automating the application of machine knowing
BRAIN Initiative - Collaborative public-private research study initiative announced by the Obama administration
China Brain Project
Future of Humanity Institute - Defunct Oxford interdisciplinary research study centre
General game playing - Ability of artificial intelligence to play various games
Generative synthetic intelligence - AI system capable of producing material in response to triggers
Human Brain Project - Scientific research study task
Intelligence amplification - Use of infotech to enhance human intelligence (IA).
Machine principles - Moral behaviours of man-made makers.
Moravec's paradox.
Multi-task learning - Solving several machine finding out tasks at the very same time.
Neural scaling law - Statistical law in artificial intelligence.
Outline of synthetic intelligence - Overview of and topical guide to expert system.
Transhumanism - Philosophical movement.
Synthetic intelligence - Alternate term for or form of expert system.
Transfer knowing - Machine knowing strategy.
Loebner Prize - Annual AI competitors.
Hardware for expert system - Hardware specifically created and optimized for synthetic intelligence.
Weak synthetic intelligence - Form of expert system.


Notes

^ a b See below for the origin of the term "strong AI", and see the scholastic definition of "strong AI" and weak AI in the short article Chinese space.
^ AI creator John McCarthy composes: "we can not yet define in general what sort of computational treatments we wish to call intelligent. " [26] (For a discussion of some definitions of intelligence used by artificial intelligence researchers, see approach of expert system.).
^ The Lighthill report specifically criticized AI's "grand objectives" and led the taking apart of AI research in England. [55] In the U.S., DARPA ended up being figured out to fund just "mission-oriented direct research, rather than standard undirected research". [56] [57] ^ As AI founder John McCarthy writes "it would be a fantastic relief to the remainder of the employees in AI if the inventors of brand-new general formalisms would express their hopes in a more guarded kind than has often been the case." [61] ^ In "Mind Children" [122] 1015 cps is used. More recently, in 1997, [123] Moravec argued for 108 MIPS which would roughly represent 1014 cps. Moravec talks in terms of MIPS, not "cps", which is a non-standard term Kurzweil presented.
^ As specified in a standard AI book: "The assertion that machines might perhaps act intelligently (or, possibly better, act as if they were smart) is called the 'weak AI' hypothesis by philosophers, and the assertion that machines that do so are in fact thinking (as opposed to replicating thinking) is called the 'strong AI' hypothesis." [121] ^ Alan Turing made this point in 1950. [36] References

^ Krishna, Sri (9 February 2023). "What is artificial narrow intelligence (ANI)?". VentureBeat. Retrieved 1 March 2024. ANI is developed to perform a single job.
^ "OpenAI Charter". OpenAI. Retrieved 6 April 2023. Our mission is to guarantee that artificial basic intelligence advantages all of humanity.
^ Heath, Alex (18 January 2024). "Mark Zuckerberg's new objective is producing artificial basic intelligence". The Verge. Retrieved 13 June 2024. Our vision is to develop AI that is much 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 recognized as being active in 2020.
^ a b c "AI timelines: What do experts in expert system 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 pioneer Geoffrey Hinton stops 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 actors from utilizing it for bad things.
^ Bubeck, Sébastien; Chandrasekaran, Varun; Eldan, Ronen; Gehrke, Johannes; Horvitz, Eric (2023 ). "Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early experiments with GPT-4". arXiv preprint. arXiv:2303.12712. GPT-4 shows sparks 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 Artificial Intelligence". The New York Times. The real danger is not AI itself however the method we deploy it.
^ "Impressed by expert system? Experts state AGI is following, and it has 'existential' dangers". ABC News. 23 March 2023. Retrieved 6 April 2023. AGI might pose existential risks to humanity.
^ Bostrom, Nick (2014 ). Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-1996-7811-2. The very first superintelligence will be the last development that humanity needs to make.
^ Roose, Kevin (30 May 2023). "A.I. Poses 'Risk of Extinction,' Industry Leaders Warn". The New York Times. Mitigating the danger of termination from AI should be an international top priority.
^ "Statement on AI Risk". Center for AI Safety. Retrieved 1 March 2024. AI professionals alert of threat of termination from AI.
^ Mitchell, Melanie (30 May 2023). "Are AI's Doomsday Scenarios Worth Taking Seriously?". The New York City Times. We are far from creating devices that can outthink us in general ways.
^ LeCun, Yann (June 2023). "AGI does not present an existential danger". Medium. There is no factor to fear AI as an existential danger.
^ Kurzweil 2005, p. 260.
^ a b Kurzweil, Ray (5 August 2005), "Long Live AI", Forbes, archived from the original on 14 August 2005: Kurzweil explains strong AI as "machine intelligence with the complete variety of human intelligence.".
^ "The Age of Expert System: George John at TEDxLondonBusinessSchool 2013". Archived from the initial on 26 February 2014. Retrieved 22 February 2014.
^ Newell & Simon 1976, This is the term they use 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 artificial superintelligence (ASI)?|Definition from TechTarget". Enterprise AI. Retrieved 8 October 2023.
^ "Artificial intelligence is transforming our world - it is on everybody to make sure that it works out". 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 traits is based upon the topics covered by major 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: Academic Press.
^ a b Pfeifer, R. and Bongard J. C., How the body shapes the way we believe: a brand-new view of intelligence (The MIT Press, 2007). ISBN 0-2621-6239-3.
^ White, R. W. (1959 ). "Motivation reconsidered: The idea of skills". Psychological Review. 66 (5 ): 297-333. doi:10.1037/ h0040934. PMID 13844397. S2CID 37385966.
^ White, R. W. (1959 ). "Motivation reevaluated: The principle of competence". 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 occurs 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 says 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 distinguish 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 everything from the bar test to AP Biology. Here's a list of tough exams both AI variations have actually passed". Business Insider. Retrieved 30 May 2023.
^ Naysmith, Caleb (7 February 2023). "6 Jobs Artificial Intelligence Is Already Replacing and How Investors Can Profit From 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 unreliable. The Winograd Schema is obsolete. Coffee is the response". Analytics India Magazine. Retrieved 3 March 2024.
^ Bhaimiya, Sawdah (20 June 2023). "DeepMind's co-founder recommended evaluating an AI chatbot's capability 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 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 City: 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). Expert System, Evolutionary Computation and Metaheuristics (AIECM): 3-17. Archived (PDF) from the initial 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 quoted 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 ), priced quote 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 Artificial Intelligence, a Squadron of Bright Real People". The New York Times. Archived from the initial on 2 February 2023. Retrieved 18 February 2017. At its low point, some computer system researchers and software application engineers avoided the term artificial intelligence for worry of being deemed 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 Expert System: Sequential Decisions Based on 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 initial on 19 July 2022. Retrieved 19 July 2022.
^ Legg, Shane (2008 ). Machine Super Intelligence (PDF) (Thesis). University of Lugano. Archived (PDF) from the initial on 15 June 2022. Retrieved 19 July 2022.
^ Goertzel, Ben (2014 ). Artificial General Intelligence. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Vol. 8598. Journal of Artificial General Intelligence. doi:10.1007/ 978-3-319-09274-4. ISBN 978-3-3190-9273-7. S2CID 8387410.
^ "Who created the term "AGI"?". goertzel.org. Archived from the original on 28 December 2018. Retrieved 28 December 2018., via 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 summer 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 initial 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 machine intelligence: Despite development in maker intelligence, synthetic basic intelligence is still a significant challenge". 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 experiments with 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 develop into a Frankenstein's monster". The Guardian. Archived from the initial 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 basic expert system will not be realized". 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 expert system 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 development in artificial intelligence: A survey of skilled opinion. In Fundamental concerns of artificial 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 machines: 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 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 original 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