The DOI matches its DataCite record; 59 of the 59 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 10 of the 39 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Levels of AGI for Operationalizing Progress on the Path to AGI
Open accessAbstract
We propose a framework for classifying the capabilities and behavior of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) models and their precursors. This framework introduces levels of AGI performance, generality, and autonomy, providing a common language to compare models, assess risks, and measure progress along the path to AGI. To develop our framework, we analyze existing definitions of AGI, and distill six principles that a useful ontology for AGI should satisfy. With these principles in mind, we propose "Levels of AGI" based on depth (performance) and breadth (generality) of capabilities, and reflect on how current systems fit into this ontology. We discuss the challenging requirements for future benchmarks that quantify the behavior and capabilities of AGI models against these levels. Finally, we discuss how these levels of AGI interact with deployment considerations such as autonomy and risk, and emphasize the importance of carefully selecting Human-AI Interaction paradigms for responsible and safe deployment of highly capable AI systems.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This position paper proposes a leveled ontology for AGI that separates performance (depth) from generality (breadth), with six principles for operationalizing AGI. It argues current frontier language models are best classified as Level 1 “Emerging AGI” and that no public system has reached “Competent AGI” as of September 2023.
Key findings
- Proposes a Levels of AGI matrix: performance levels Emerging, Competent (≥50th percentile of skilled adults), Expert (≥90th), Exceptional (≥99th), and Superhuman (outperforms 100% of humans), crossed with Narrow vs. General generality; Competent AGI, Expert AGI, Exceptional AGI, and ASI are listed as not yet achieved.
- Distills six principles for an operationalizable AGI definition: focus on capabilities not processes; generality and performance; cognitive/metacognitive rather than physical tasks; potential not deployment; ecological validity; and the path to AGI rather than a single endpoint.
- Classifies current frontier LLMs (ChatGPT, Bard, Llama 2, Gemini) as Level 1 “Emerging AGI” overall, with “Competent” performance on some tasks (e.g., short essay writing, simple coding) but “Emerging” performance on most tasks (e.g., mathematical abilities, factuality).
- Introduces six Levels of Autonomy (No AI, AI as Tool, AI as Consultant, AI as Collaborator, AI as Expert, AI as Agent) and argues autonomy is unlocked but not determined by AGI level, with risk depending on the combination.
Methods
- Position/analysis paper: examines nine prominent AGI definitions (Turing Test, strong AI, brain analogies, human-level cognitive tasks, ability to learn tasks, economically valuable work, flexible/general “Coffee Test,” Artificial Capable Intelligence, and SOTA LLMs as generalists) and distills six principles.
- Proposes a two-dimensional leveled taxonomy (performance × generality) plus a companion autonomy taxonomy, and discusses requirements for future AGI benchmarks and risk assessment.
- No empirical study, dataset, or benchmark is introduced; classifications of example systems are described as approximate.
Limitations
- Stated: the authors do not propose a benchmark; they leave open what task set constitutes generality, what proportion of tasks must be mastered, and whether certain tasks are mandatory, calling instead for a living benchmark.
- Stated: assignment of example systems to cells is approximate, unambiguous classification requires a standardized benchmark, and the risk analysis is incomplete; predictions about which autonomy levels are unlocked are speculative.
- Evident: as a position paper, it provides no empirical validation of the levels, no inter-rater reliability for system classifications, and no quantitative evaluation of the proposed framework.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
10 of 39 cited sources checked · 4 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“has the additional downside of potentially introducing alignment risks (Kenton et al., 2021) by only targeting fiscal profit.”
§ Position: Levels of AGI for Operationalizing Progress on the Path to AGI > 2. Defining AGI: Case Studies
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Kenton et al., 2021 source
Section 3.1, AI Alignment (p. 3), says that optimizing the wrong objective can lead to bad outcomes, supporting the cited point about potential alignment risks. The fiscal-profit framing is the citing author's application of that general risk, not a claim that Kenton et al. discuss profit specifically. (LLM, conf=0.87)
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“there is no scientific consensus on methods for determining whether machines possess strong AI attributes such as consciousness (Butlin et al., 2023)”
§ Position: Levels of AGI for Operationalizing Progress on the Path to AGI > 2. Defining AGI: Case Studies
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Butlin et al., 2023 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction says expert opinions about AI consciousness are highly divergent, and the Executive Summary describes the authors’ assessment rubric as provisional. This supports the lack of a settled approach to assessing consciousness, but the paper does not address methods for determining other “strong AI attributes.” (LLM, conf=0.82)
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“similarly, it is not a necessary precursor for AGI that systems possess qualities such as consciousness (subjective awareness) (Butlin et al., 2023) or sentience (the ability to have feelings), since these qualities have a process focus.”
§ Position: Levels of AGI for Operationalizing Progress on the Path to AGI > 3. Defining AGI: Six Principles
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Butlin et al., 2023 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 4.2 (page unavailable) says we may find ways to build high-performing AI systems that are not conscious, supporting the idea that consciousness need not accompany greater AI capability. It does not specifically establish that consciousness is unnecessary for AGI, and it frames the possibility cautiously. The citation is attached to consciousness, not the separate claim about sentience. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes? Checkable: unclear✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Despite recent advances in robotics (Brohan et al., 2023), physical capabilities for AI systems seem to be lagging behind non-physical capabilities.”
§ Position: Levels of AGI for Operationalizing Progress on the Path to AGI > 3. Defining AGI: Six Principles
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Brohan et al., 2023 source
The citation is attached to “recent advances in robotics,” not to the citing authors’ assessment that physical capabilities lag behind non-physical ones. The Introduction (p. 3) describes RT-2’s new robotic capabilities, including improved generalization and deploying learned physical skills in new ways. (LLM, conf=0.91)
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“we posit that AlphaFold (Jumper et al., 2021;Varadi et al., 2021) is a Level 5 Narrow AI (“Superhuman Narrow AI”) since it performs a single task (predicting a protein's 3D structure from an amino acid sequence) above the level of the world's top scientists.”
§ Position: Levels of AGI for Operationalizing Progress on the Path to AGI > Competent AGI not yet achieved
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Jumper et al., 2021 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The AlphaFold network section describes predicting a protein’s 3D coordinates from its amino acid sequence and related inputs. The Main section reports that AlphaFold was substantially more accurate than competing methods in the CASP14 assessment, but it does not compare its performance directly with the world’s top scientists. The Level 5 label is the citing authors’ own proposed classification. (LLM, conf=0.84)
- Partly supportedcites Varadi et al., 2021 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction (page unavailable) identifies AlphaFold as an AI system that predicts protein structures from amino-acid sequences and describes its accuracy as unprecedented. It does not compare AlphaFold’s performance with that of the world’s top scientists. The Level 5 classification is explicitly the citing authors’ own proposal, not a classification attributed to this source. (LLM, conf=0.85)
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes- Partly supported
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We estimate the “Expert” level of performance since DALLE-2 produces images of higher quality than most people are able to draw”
§ Position: Levels of AGI for Operationalizing Progress on the Path to AGI > Competent AGI not yet achieved
Load-bearingStrength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes? Based: unclearThe paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“however, the system has failure modes (e.g., drawing hands with incorrect numbers of digits, rendering nonsensical or illegible text) that prevent it from achieving an “Exceptional” performance designation.”
§ Position: Levels of AGI for Operationalizing Progress on the Path to AGI > Competent AGI not yet achieved
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIn the paper
“Consider DALLE-2 (Ramesh et al., 2022), which we estimate as a Level 3 Narrow AI (“Expert Narrow AI”) in our taxonomy.”
§ Position: Levels of AGI for Operationalizing Progress on the Path to AGI > Competent AGI not yet achieved
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Ramesh et al., 2022
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes- Not matched
In the paper
“the success of transformer-based architectures (Vaswani et al., 2023) whose performance is not reliant on humanlike learning suggests that strict brain-based processes and benchmarks are not inherently necessary for AGI.”
§ Position: Levels of AGI for Operationalizing Progress on the Path to AGI > 2. Defining AGI: Case Studies
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Vaswani et al., 2023
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Load-bearingStrength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes? Checkable: unclear✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Given that modern LLMs pass some framings of the Turing Test, it seems clear that this criteria is insufficient for operationalizing or benchmarking AGI.”
§ Position: Levels of AGI for Operationalizing Progress on the Path to AGI > 2. Defining AGI: Case Studies
Load-bearingStrength:boosted· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Rests on an assumption: Modern LLMs pass some framings of the Turing Test.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 53
- It may state two separate claims as one. 9
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Conversely, the role of human-AI interaction research can be viewed as ensuring new AI systems are usable by and useful to people such that AI systems successfully extend people's capabilities (i.e.,”
§ Position: Levels of AGI for Operationalizing Progress on the Path to AGI > 6.3. Human-AI Interaction and Risk Assessment
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Brynjolfsson, 2022 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The paper argues that AI can augment human capabilities, enabling people to do things they could not do before (p. 3), and that augmentation opens new opportunities (p. 10). It does not describe the role of human-AI interaction research or say that ensuring systems are usable and useful is how that augmentation is achieved. (LLM, conf=0.84)
- Not matchedcites Englebart, 1962
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“we posit that as of this writing in September 2023, frontier language models (e.g., ChatGPT (OpenAI, 2023), Bard (Anil et al., 2023), Llama2 (Touvron et al., 2023), etc.) exhibit “Competent” performance levels for some tasks (e.g., short essay writing, simple coding), but are still at “Emerging” performance levels for most tasks (e.g., mathematical abilities, tasks involving factuality).”
§ Position: Levels of AGI for Operationalizing Progress on the Path to AGI > 4. Levels of AGI
What the sources say
- Supportedcites OpenAI, 2023 source
The citation is attached to ChatGPT as an example of a frontier language model, rather than to the citing authors’ proposed “Competent” and “Emerging” ratings. The report identifies ChatGPT as a deployment of GPT-4 (Economic Impacts, p. 58) and discusses earlier ChatGPT versions based on GPT-3.5 (Limitations, p. 10), supporting that identification. (LLM, conf=0.87)
- Supportedcites Anil et al., 2023 source
The citation is attached to “Bard” in the list of example models, rather than to the citing authors’ performance assessment. The PaLM 2 model card (Additional information; page unavailable) identifies Bard as an application built on PaLM 2, supporting that identification. (LLM, conf=0.90)
- Not matchedcites Touvron et al., 2023
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Load-bearingStrength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Unlike prior taxonomies of computer automation (Sheridan et al., 1978;Sheridan & Parasuraman, 2005;Parasuraman et al., 2000) that take a computer-centric perspective (fram-ing automation in terms of how much control the designer relinquishes to computers), we characterize the concept of autonomy through the lens of the nature of human-AI interaction style”
§ Position: Levels of AGI for Operationalizing Progress on the Path to AGI > 6.2. Capabilities vs. Autonomy
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Sheridan et al., 1978
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Sheridan & Parasuraman, 2005
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Partly supportedcites Parasuraman et al., 2000 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section III (p. 2) describes automation levels as increasing the computer’s autonomy over human action, supporting the claim’s description of how levels are framed. But Section II (p. 1) says the model is guided by human-centered automation, and the Introduction (p. 1) makes human-performance consequences its primary design criterion. Calling this paper’s perspective simply computer-centric therefore overstates the contrast; the citing authors’ human-AI interaction approach is their own characterization, not a claim this source must establish. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The majority of definitions focus on what an AGI can accomplish, not on the mechanism by which it accomplishes tasks.”
§ Position: Levels of AGI for Operationalizing Progress on the Path to AGI > 3. Defining AGI: Six Principles
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The assignment of example systems to cells is approximate.”
§ Position: Levels of AGI for Operationalizing Progress on the Path to AGI > 4. Levels of AGI
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All of the above definitions emphasize generality to varying degrees, but some exclude performance criteria.”
§ Position: Levels of AGI for Operationalizing Progress on the Path to AGI > 3. Defining AGI: Six Principles
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Most definitions focus on cognitive tasks, by which we mean non-physical tasks.”
§ Position: Levels of AGI for Operationalizing Progress on the Path to AGI > 3. Defining AGI: Six Principles
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The “Competent AGI” level, which has not been achieved by any public systems at the time of writing, best corresponds to many prior conceptions of AGI, and may precipitate rapid societal change once achieved.”
§ Position: Levels of AGI for Operationalizing Progress on the Path to AGI > 4. Levels of AGI
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“A shortcoming of this definition is that it does not capture all of the criteria that may be part of “general intelligence.””
§ Position: Levels of AGI for Operationalizing Progress on the Path to AGI > 2. Defining AGI: Case Studies
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites OpenAI, 2018
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Load-bearingStrength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Not matched
In the paper
“This definition captures both generality and performance (via the inclusion of reliability)”
§ Position: Levels of AGI for Operationalizing Progress on the Path to AGI > 2. Defining AGI: Case Studies
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Marcus, 2022b
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“such tasks may have more ecological validity than many current AI benchmarks”
§ Position: Levels of AGI for Operationalizing Progress on the Path to AGI > 2. Defining AGI: Case Studies
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Mustafa Suleyman and Michael Bhaskar, 2023
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“This framing is more narrow than OpenAI's definition of economically valuable work”
§ Position: Levels of AGI for Operationalizing Progress on the Path to AGI > 2. Defining AGI: Case Studies
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Mustafa Suleyman and Michael Bhaskar, 2023
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites OpenAI, 2018
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Another challenge with framing AGI in terms of economic value is the implied need for deployment in order to realize that value, whereas a focus on capabilities might only require the potential for an AGI to execute a task.”
§ Position: Levels of AGI for Operationalizing Progress on the Path to AGI > 2. Defining AGI: Case Studies
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites OpenAI, 2018
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“While we agree that generality is a crucial characteristic of AGI, we posit that it must also be paired with a measure of performance (i.e., if an LLM can write code or perform math, but is not reliably correct, then its generality is not yet sufficiently performant).”
§ Position: Levels of AGI for Operationalizing Progress on the Path to AGI > 2. Defining AGI: Case Studies
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Agüera y Arcas & Norvig, 2023
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This focus on capabilities implies that AGI systems need not necessarily think or understand in a human-like way (since this focuses on processes)”
§ Position: Levels of AGI for Operationalizing Progress on the Path to AGI > 3. Defining AGI: Six Principles
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There are tasks associated with intelligence that may not have a well-defined economic value (e.g., artistic creativity or emotional intelligence).”
§ Position: Levels of AGI for Operationalizing Progress on the Path to AGI > 2. Defining AGI: Case Studies
Load-bearingStrength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Note that general systems that broadly perform at a level N may be able to perform a narrow subset of tasks at higher levels.”
§ Position: Levels of AGI for Operationalizing Progress on the Path to AGI > 4. Levels of AGI
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“This level-based approach to defining AGI supports the coexistence of many prominent formulations -for example, Aguera y Arcas & Norvig's definition (Agüera y Arcas & Norvig, 2023) would fall into the “Emerging AGI” category of our ontology, while OpenAI's threshold of labor replacement (OpenAI, 2018) better matches “Exceptional AGI.””
§ Position: Levels of AGI for Operationalizing Progress on the Path to AGI > 6. Focus on the Path to AGI, not a Single Endpoint.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Agüera y Arcas & Norvig, 2023
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites OpenAI, 2018
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Our “Competent AGI” level is probably the best catch-all for many existing definitions of AGI (e.g., the Legg (Legg, 2008), Shanahan (Shanahan, 2015), and Suleyman (Mustafa Suleyman and Michael Bhaskar, 2023) formulations).”
§ Position: Levels of AGI for Operationalizing Progress on the Path to AGI > 6. Focus on the Path to AGI, not a Single Endpoint.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Legg, 2008
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Shanahan, 2015
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Mustafa Suleyman and Michael Bhaskar, 2023
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We introduced Levels of Autonomy that are unlocked, but not determined by, progression through the Levels of AGI.”
§ Position: Levels of AGI for Operationalizing Progress on the Path to AGI > 7. Conclusion
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“While Level 5 Self-Driving (SAE International, 2021) vehicles would likely be a Level 4 or 5 Narrow AI under our taxonomy, the same considerations regarding human vs. computer autonomy apply to AGIs.”
§ Position: Levels of AGI for Operationalizing Progress on the Path to AGI > 6.2. Capabilities vs. Autonomy
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites SAE International, 2021
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For example, in the domain of self-driving vehicles, when Level 5 Self-Driving technology is widely available, there may be reasons for using a Level 0 (No Automation) vehicle.”
§ Position: Levels of AGI for Operationalizing Progress on the Path to AGI > 6.2. Capabilities vs. Autonomy
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Including items matched to ASL capabilities in any AGI benchmark would connect points in our AGI taxonomy to specific risks and mitigations.”
§ Position: Levels of AGI for Operationalizing Progress on the Path to AGI > 6.1. Levels of AGI as a Framework for Risk Assessment
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Anthropic, 2023b
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“On the other hand, reaching “Expert AGI” likely alleviates some risks introduced by “Emerging AGI” and “Competent AGI,” such as the risk of incorrect task execution.”
§ Position: Levels of AGI for Operationalizing Progress on the Path to AGI > 6.1. Levels of AGI as a Framework for Risk Assessment
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Considering AGI systems in the context of use by people allows us to reflect on the interplay between advances in models and advances in human-AI interaction paradigms.”
§ Position: Levels of AGI for Operationalizing Progress on the Path to AGI > 6.3. Human-AI Interaction and Risk Assessment
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Requiring deployment as a condition of measuring AGI introduces nontechnical hurdles such as legal and social considerations, as well as ethical and safety concerns.”
§ Position: Levels of AGI for Operationalizing Progress on the Path to AGI > 3. Defining AGI: Six Principles
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“Knowing when to ask for help is necessary to support alignment and appropriate human-AI interaction (Terry et al., 2023)”
§ Position: Levels of AGI for Operationalizing Progress on the Path to AGI > 5. Testing for AGI
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Terry et al., 2023 source
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Determining that something is not an AGI at a given level simply requires identifying tasks that people can typically do but the system cannot adequately perform.”
§ Position: Levels of AGI for Operationalizing Progress on the Path to AGI > 5. Testing for AGI
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Additionally, this framing also implies that Superhuman systems may be able to perform an even broader generality of tasks than lower levels of AGI, since the ability to execute tasks that qualitatively differ from existing human skills would by definition outperform all humans (who fundamentally cannot do such tasks).”
§ Position: Levels of AGI for Operationalizing Progress on the Path to AGI > Competent AGI not yet achieved
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“With these principles in mind, we introduced our Levels of AGI ontology, which offers a more nuanced way to define progress toward AGI by considering generality (either Narrow or General) in tandem with five levels of performance (Emerging, Competent, Expert, Exceptional, and Superhuman).”
§ Position: Levels of AGI for Operationalizing Progress on the Path to AGI > 7. Conclusion
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These interaction paradigms in turn introduce new classes of risk.”
§ Position: Levels of AGI for Operationalizing Progress on the Path to AGI > 6.3. Human-AI Interaction and Risk Assessment
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“While Level 5 Self-Driving (SAE International, 2021) vehicles would likely be a Level 4 or 5 Narrow AI under our taxonomy, the same considerations regarding human vs. computer autonomy apply to AGIs.”
§ Position: Levels of AGI for Operationalizing Progress on the Path to AGI > 6.2. Capabilities vs. Autonomy
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites SAE International, 2021
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We argue that both generality and performance are key components of AGI.”
§ Position: Levels of AGI for Operationalizing Progress on the Path to AGI > 3. Defining AGI: Six Principles
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The “Competent AGI” level, which has not been achieved by any public systems at the time of writing, best corresponds to many prior conceptions of AGI, and may precipitate rapid societal change once achieved.”
§ Position: Levels of AGI for Operationalizing Progress on the Path to AGI > 4. Levels of AGI
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✗ Load-bearing: fails✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Concurrent with this work, Anthropic released Version 1.0 of its Responsible Scaling Policy (RSP) (Anthropic, 2023b).This policy uses a levels-based approach (inspired by biosafety levels (Richmond & McKinney, 2009)) to define the level of risk associated with an AI system, identifying what dangerous capabilities may be associated with each AI Safety Level (ASL), and what containment or deployment”
§ Position: Levels of AGI for Operationalizing Progress on the Path to AGI > 6.1. Levels of AGI as a Framework for Risk Assessment
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Anthropic, 2023b
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Richmond & McKinney, 2009
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Notably, we observed that AGI is not necessarily synonymous with autonomy.”
§ Position: Levels of AGI for Operationalizing Progress on the Path to AGI > 7. Conclusion
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“On the other hand, metacognitive capabilities (such as the ability to learn new tasks or the ability to know when to ask for clarification or assistance from a human) are key prerequisites for systems to achieve generality.”
§ Position: Levels of AGI for Operationalizing Progress on the Path to AGI > 3. Defining AGI: Six Principles
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This discrepancy reflects the fact that for General systems, capability development is likely to be uneven; for example, a Level 1 General AI (”
§ Position: Levels of AGI for Operationalizing Progress on the Path to AGI > 6.3. Human-AI Interaction and Risk Assessment
Load-bearingStrength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The role of model building research can be seen as helping systems' capabilities progress along the path to AGI in their performance and generality, such that an AI system's abilities will overlap an increasingly large portion of human abilities.”
§ Position: Levels of AGI for Operationalizing Progress on the Path to AGI > 6.3. Human-AI Interaction and Risk Assessment
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✗ Load-bearing: fails✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These Levels of Autonomy are correlated with the Levels of AGI.”
§ Position: Levels of AGI for Operationalizing Progress on the Path to AGI > 6.2. Capabilities vs. Autonomy
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We may develop an AGI, but choose not to deploy it autonomously, or choose to deploy it with differentiated autonomy levels in distinct circumstances as dictated by contextual considerations.”
§ Position: Levels of AGI for Operationalizing Progress on the Path to AGI > 6.2. Capabilities vs. Autonomy
Load-bearingStrength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Increasing capabilities unlock new interaction paradigms, but do not determine them.”
§ Position: Levels of AGI for Operationalizing Progress on the Path to AGI > 6.2. Capabilities vs. Autonomy
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This position paper introduces a novel ontology that supports discussing progress toward AGI in a nuanced manner, with the aim of supporting clear communication among researchers, practitioners, and policymakers about systems' capabilities and associated risks.”
§ Position: Levels of AGI for Operationalizing Progress on the Path to AGI > Impact Statement
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Higher levels of autonomy are”
§ Position: Levels of AGI for Operationalizing Progress on the Path to AGI > 6.2. Capabilities vs. Autonomy
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We illustrated how considering AGI Level jointly with Autonomy Level can provide more nuanced insights into risks associated with AI systems, underscoring the importance of investing in human-AI interaction research in tandem with model improvements.”
§ Position: Levels of AGI for Operationalizing Progress on the Path to AGI > 7. Conclusion
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“though lower levels of autonomy may be desirable for particular tasks and contexts even as we reach higher levels of AGI.”
§ Position: Levels of AGI for Operationalizing Progress on the Path to AGI > 6.2. Capabilities vs. Autonomy
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The order in which stronger skills in specific cognitive areas are acquired may have serious implications for AI safety (e.g., acquiring strong knowledge of chemical engineering before acquiring strong ethical reasoning skills may be a dangerous combination).”
§ Position: Levels of AGI for Operationalizing Progress on the Path to AGI > 4. Levels of AGI
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✗ Load-bearing: fails✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Unambiguous classification of AI systems will require a standardized benchmark of tasks, as we discuss in Section 5.”
§ Position: Levels of AGI for Operationalizing Progress on the Path to AGI > 4. Levels of AGI
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Tasks that can be used to benchmark progress toward AGI are critical to operationalizing any proposed definition.”
§ Position: Levels of AGI for Operationalizing Progress on the Path to AGI > 5. Focus on Ecological Validity.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Certain aspects of generality may be required to make particular interaction paradigms desirable.”
§ Position: Levels of AGI for Operationalizing Progress on the Path to AGI > 6.2. Capabilities vs. Autonomy
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“further, our ontology considers how AI capabilities may enable particular interaction paradigms and how the combination of level of autonomy and level of AGI may impact risk.”
§ Position: Levels of AGI for Operationalizing Progress on the Path to AGI > 6.2. Capabilities vs. Autonomy
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The interplay of model capabilities and interaction design will enable more nuanced risk assessments and responsible deployment decisions than considering model capabilities alone.”
§ Position: Levels of AGI for Operationalizing Progress on the Path to AGI > 6.3. Human-AI Interaction and Risk Assessment
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The “Competent AGI” level, which has not been achieved by any public systems at the time of writing, best corresponds to many prior conceptions of AGI, and may precipitate rapid societal change once achieved.”
§ Position: Levels of AGI for Operationalizing Progress on the Path to AGI > 4. Levels of AGI
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✗ Load-bearing: fails✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This definition means that Level 5 General AI (“ASI”) systems will be able to do a wide range of tasks at a level that no human can match.”
§ Position: Levels of AGI for Operationalizing Progress on the Path to AGI > Competent AGI not yet achieved
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper relies on this without support.
Modern LLMs pass some framings of the Turing Test.
“Given that modern LLMs pass some framings of the Turing Test”
The paper relies on this without support.
The concept of AGI is related to a prediction about progress in AI, namely that it is toward greater generality, approaching and exceeding human generality.
“The concept of AGI is related to a prediction about progress in AI, namely that it is toward greater generality, approaching and exceeding human generality.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The ability to perform physical tasks increases a system's generality.
“We suggest that the ability to perform physical tasks increases a system's generality”
The paper relies on this without support.
The ability of systems to accurately model end-users is a necessary component of alignment for AGI systems.
“the ability of systems to accurately model end-users is a necessary component of alignment for AGI systems.”
The paper relies on this without support.
It is impossible to enumerate the full set of tasks achievable by a sufficiently general intelligence.
“It is impossible to enumerate the full set of tasks achievable by a sufficiently general intelligence.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Broad but imperfect generality is impactful.
“since it seems clear that broad but imperfect generality is impactful”
The paper relies on this without support.
Individual humans lack consistent performance across all possible tasks but are generally intelligent.
“individual humans also lack consistent performance across all possible tasks, but are generally intelligent”
The paper relies on this without support.
Most dangerous capabilities tend to be dual use.
“since most such skills tend to be dual use (having valid applications to socially positive scenarios as well as nefarious ones).”
The paper relies on this without support.
Including dangerous capability tests in a public benchmark may allow malicious actors to optimize for these abilities.
“However, including such tests in a public benchmark may allow malicious actors to optimize for these abilities”
The paper relies on this without support.
Capabilities provide prerequisites for AI risks.
“While capabilities provide prerequisites for AI risks, AI systems (including AGI systems) do not and will not operate in a vacuum.”
The paper relies on this without support.
AI systems, including AGI systems, do not and will not operate in a vacuum; they are deployed with particular interfaces and used to achieve particular tasks in specific scenarios.
“Rather, AI systems are deployed with particular interfaces and used to achieve particular tasks in specific scenarios.”
The paper relies on this without support.
System designers and end-users will settle on a mode of human-AI interaction that balances a variety of considerations, including safety.
“Rather, system designers and end-users will settle on a mode of human-AI interaction (Morris et al., 2023) that balances a variety of considerations, including safety.”
The paper relies on this without support.
AGI is a concept of both aspirational and practical consequences.
“Artificial General Intelligence is a concept of both aspirational and practical consequences.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The choice of appropriate autonomy level need not be the maximum achievable given the capabilities of the underlying model.
“The choice of appropriate autonomy level need not be the maximum achievable given the capabilities of the underlying model.”
The paper relies on this without support.
One consideration in the choice of autonomy level are resulting risks.
“One consideration in the choice of autonomy level are resulting risks.”
Citations
Cites
Vaswani, A., Shazeer, N., Parmar, N., Uszkoreit, J., Jones, L., Gomez, A. N., Kaiser, L., & Polosukhin, I. (2017) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1706.03762 · Cited by 120,404
Highly accurate protein structure prediction with AlphaFold
Jumper, J., Evans, R., Pritzel, A., Green, T., Figurnov, M., Ronneberger, O., Tunyasuvunakool, K., Bates, R., Žídek, A., Potapenko, A., et al. (2021) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03819-2 · Cited by 43,764
Mastering the game of Go with deep neural networks and tree search
Silver, D., Huang, A., Maddison, C. J., Guez, A., Sifre, L., van den Driessche, G., Schrittwieser, J., Antonoglou, I., Panneershelvam, V., Lanctot, M., et al. (2016) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature16961 · Cited by 15,612
I.—COMPUTING MACHINERY AND INTELLIGENCE
TURING, A. M. (1950) · Mind · doi:10.1093/mind/lix.236.433 · Cited by 10,290
Mastering the game of Go without human knowledge
Silver, D., Schrittwieser, J., Simonyan, K., Antonoglou, I., Huang, A., Guez, A., Hubert, T., Baker, L., Lai, M., Bolton, A., et al. (2017) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature24270 · Cited by 9,084
Varadi, M., Anyango, S., Deshpande, M., Nair, S., Natassia, C., Yordanova, G., Yuan, D., Stroe, O., Wood, G., Laydon, A., et al. (2022) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/gkab1061 · Cited by 7,850
Searle, J. R. (1980) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x00005756 · Cited by 6,954
ELIZA—a computer program for the study of natural language communication between man and machine
Weizenbaum, J. (1966) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/365153.365168 · Cited by 4,452
A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation
Parasuraman, R., Sheridan, T. B., & Wickens, C. D. (2000) · IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics - Part A: Systems and Humans · doi:10.1109/3468.844354 · Cited by 4,195
A general reinforcement learning algorithm that masters chess, shogi, and Go through self-play
Silver, D., Hubert, T., Schrittwieser, J., Antonoglou, I., Lai, M., Guez, A., Lanctot, M., Sifre, L., Kumaran, D., Graepel, T., et al. (2018) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aar6404 · Cited by 3,562
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 6
- Gubrud, M. Nanotechnology and International Security. Fifth Foresight Conference on Molecular Nanotechnology, November 1997.
- Legg, S. Machine Super Intelligence. Doctoral Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of Informatics of the University of Lugano, June 2008.
- McCarthy, J., Minsky, M., Rochester, N., and Shannon, C. A Proposal for The Dartmouth Summer Research Project on Artificial Intelligence. Dartmouth Workshop, 1955.
- Pressley, M., Borkowski, J., and Schneider, W. Cognitive strategies: Good strategy users coordinate metacognition and knowledge. Annals of Child Development, 4:89-129, 1987.
- Shah, R., Freire, P., Alex, N., Freedman, R., Krasheninnikov, D., Chan, L., Dennis, M. D., Abbeel, P., Dragan, A., and Russell, S. Benefits of Assistance over Reward Learning, 2021. URL https://openreview.net/forum? id=DFIoGDZejIB.
- Shanahan, M. Embodiment and the Inner Life. Oxford University Press, 2010.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 101–200 of 281
Schreiber, A., Sander, K., Kopiez, R., & Thöne, R. D. (2024) · Jahrbuch der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Musikpsychologie/Jahrbuch Musikpsychologie · doi:10.5964/jbdgm.195 · Cited by 6
Artificial intelligence: An explainer
Gajjar, D. (2023) · doi:10.58248/pb57 · Cited by 6
The CAP Principle for LLM Serving: A Survey of Long-Context Large Language Model ServingPreprint
Zeng, P., Ning, Z., Zhao, J., Cui, W., Xu, M., Guo, L., Chen, X., & Shan, Y. (2024) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2405.11299 · Cited by 7
MOSAAIC: Managing Optimization towards Shared Autonomy, Authority, and Initiative in Co-creationPreprint
Issak, A., Rezwana, J., & Harteveld, C. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.11481 · Cited by 6
Döker, Y. F. (2025) · Law Technology and Humans · doi:10.5204/lthj.3757 · Cited by 5
Dickel, S. (2025) · Zeitschrift für Soziologie · doi:10.1515/zfsoz-2025-2011 · Cited by 5
The role of generative artificial intelligence in modern design: theoretical considerations
Galkin, D. V., & Weng, W. H. (2025) · Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta Kul turologiya i iskusstvovedenie · doi:10.17223/22220836/57/3 · Cited by 5
Xiong, G., Liu, S., Yan, Y., Li, Q., & Li, H. (2025) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2025.3580641 · Cited by 6
Benchmarking and Confidence Evaluation of LALMs For Temporal Reasoning
Bhattacharya, D., Kulkarni, A. S., & Ganapathy, S. (2025) · Interspeech (USB) · doi:10.21437/interspeech.2025-1228 · Cited by 5
Toward a human–AI task tensor: a taxonomy for organizing work in the age of generative AI
Doshi, A. R., & Moore, A. P. (2026) · Edward Elgar Publishing eBooks · doi:10.4337/9781035345885.00014 · Cited by 5
Bootstrapping Developmental AIs: From Simple Competences to Intelligent Human-Compatible AIsPreprint
Stefik, M., & Price, R. (2023) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2308.04586 · Cited by 5
Standardization Trends on Safety and Trustworthiness Technology for Advanced AIPreprint
Jeon, J. (2024) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.22151 · Cited by 5
Gonçalves, A. B. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.19749 · Cited by 5
Xu, X., Bai, C., Yang, K., Chen, T., Wang, Y., Yang, S., & Yang, C. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.26226 · Cited by 5
Jiang, X., Wang, Q., Wu, J., He, X., Xu, Z., Ma, Y., Piao, M., Yang, K., Zheng, X., Shimizu, R., et al. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.17645 · Cited by 5
Partners or Tools? Anticipatory Governance for Human-AI Complementarity in Higher Education
Autenrieth, D., & Schluchter, J.-R. (2025) · Zeitschrift für Hochschulentwicklung · doi:10.21240/zfhe/20-4/10 · Cited by 4
Generative AI for autonomous data analytics
Fikardos, M., Lepenioti, K., Bousdekis, A., Apostolou, D., & Mentzas, G. N. (2026) · Intelligent Systems with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.iswa.2026.200626 · Cited by 4
What are the limits to biomedical research acceleration through general-purpose AI?
Hebenstreit, K., Convalexius, C., Reichl, S., Huber, S. E., Bock, C., & Samwald, M. (2026) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-025-32583-w · Cited by 4
Artificial General Intelligence and the Rise of a Techno-Leisure Class
Stiefenhofer, P. (2025) · International Journal of Economics and Finance · doi:10.67887/pd2501201005 · Cited by 4
BloomVQA: Assessing Hierarchical Multi-modal Comprehension
Gong, Y., Shrestha, R., Claypoole, J., Cogswell, M., Ray, A., Kanan, C., & Divakaran, A. (2024) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL (Findings of ACL) · doi:10.18653/v1/2024.findings-acl.885 · Cited by 4
Ponce, J. I. P., Zambrano, M. T. Z., & Anchundia, P. J. Q. (2025) · Revista Científica Multidisciplinaria SAPIENTIAE · doi:10.56124/sapientiae.v8i16.034 · Cited by 4
Defining dangerous AI: existential risk, power-intelligence, and the limits of AGI
Sass, R. (2025) · AI and Ethics · doi:10.1007/s43681-025-00790-w · Cited by 4
Mapping Generative Artificial Intelligence (GAI's) Exciting Future: From Gemini to Q* and Beyond
Akhtar, Z. B. (2024) · EAI Endorsed Transactions on AI and Robotics · doi:10.4108/airo.5962 · Cited by 4
The influence of autonomy of a teleoperated robot on user's objective and subjective performance
Wozniak, M. M., Ari, I., Tommaso, D. D., & Wykowska, A. (2024) · IEEE RO-MAN · doi:10.1109/ro-man60168.2024.10731374 · Cited by 4
Fu, Y., Song, J., Zhang, X., & Bi, J. (2025) · Information Research · doi:10.47989/ir30iconf47335 · Cited by 4
Benchmarking Abstract and Reasoning Abilities Through A Theoretical PerspectivePreprint
Ma, Q., Wu, Y., Zheng, X., & Ji, R. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.23833 · Cited by 4
Double-Checker: Enhancing Reasoning of Slow-Thinking LLMs via Self-Critical Fine-TuningPreprint
Xu, X., Chen, T., Zhang, F., Liu, W., Li, P., Jaiswal, A. K., Yan, Y., Hu, J., Wang, Y., Chen, H., et al. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.21285 · Cited by 4
Preparing for the Intelligence ExplosionPreprint
MacAskill, W., & Moorhouse, F. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.14863 · Cited by 4
Embodied Intelligence: The Key to Unblocking Generalized Artificial IntelligencePreprint
Jiang, J., Chen, C., Feng, S., Geng, W., Zhou, Z., Wang, N., Li, S., Cui, F.-Q., & Dong, E. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.06897 · Cited by 4
LifeEval: A Multimodal Benchmark for Assistive AI in Egocentric Daily Life TasksPreprint
Gao, H., Zhang, K., Wang, S., Chen, M., Cao, Q., Wang, X., Zhu, Y., Min, X., Sun, W., Zhu, D., et al. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.00490 · Cited by 4
Cradle: Empowering Foundation Agents Towards General Computer Control
Tan, W., Zhang, W., Xu, X., Xia, H., Ding, Z., Li, B., Zhou, B., Yue, J., Jiang, J., Li, Y., et al. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2403.03186 · Cited by 3
Dissecting Dissonance: Benchmarking Large Multimodal Models Against Self-Contradictory Instructions
Gao, J., Gan, L., Li, Y., Ye, Y., & Wang, D. Y. (2024) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-72998-0_23 · Cited by 3
Modern Prometheus: tracing the ill-defined path to AGI
Landers, M. (2025) · AI & Society · doi:10.1007/s00146-025-02363-1 · Cited by 3
A year of racing ahead with AI and not breaking things
(2023) · Nature Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1038/s42256-023-00782-7 · Cited by 3
On the Evaluation of Engineering Artificial General IntelligencePreprint
Neema, S. K., Jha, S., Nagel, A., Lew, E., Sureshkumar, C., Gordic, A., Shimmin, C. O., Nguygen, H., & Eremenko, P. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.10653 · Cited by 3
Human-Aligned Bench: Fine-Grained Assessment of Reasoning Ability in MLLMs vs. HumansPreprint
Qiu, Y., Li, X., Xu, Z., Zhou, P., Wang, Z., & Zhang, K. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.11141 · Cited by 3
Evaluating Intelligence via Trial and ErrorPreprint
Zhan, J., Zhao, J., Li, J., Liu, Y., Zhang, B., Ai, Q., Mao, J., Wang, H., Zhang, M., & Ma, S. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.18858 · Cited by 3
Xiao, A., Cheng, S., Xu, Y., Ren, Y., Chen, H., & Yokoya, N. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.08896 · Cited by 3
Hendrycks, D., Song, D., Szegedy, C., Lee, H., Gal, Y., Brynjolfsson, E., Li, S., Zou, A., Levine, L., Han, B., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.18212 · Cited by 3
Is Phenomenal Consciousness Necessary for AGI? A Review of the Theoretical Landscape
Cea, I. (2025) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-00686-8_7 · Cited by 2
Zhang, D., Shi, W. K., & Jia, X. (2026) · IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials · doi:10.1109/comst.2026.3672428 · Cited by 2
iBRAHIMOĞLU, N., Demirezen, M. U., & Yıldız, F. (2026) · Cluster Computing · doi:10.1007/s10586-026-06537-4 · Cited by 2
The Influence of Robot Autonomy on Sense of Control and Trust Towards a Robot
Wozniak, M. M., Tommaso, D. D., Knoblich, G., & Wykowska, A. (2026) · International Journal of Social Robotics · doi:10.1007/s12369-026-01375-1 · Cited by 2
Games of Knightian Uncertainty as AGI testbeds
Samothrakis, S., Soemers, D. J. N. J., & Machlanski, D. (2024) · IEEE Conference on Games (CoG) · doi:10.1109/cog60054.2024.10645613 · Cited by 2
Technology roadmap toward the completion of whole-brain architecture with BRA-driven development
Yamakawa, H., Tawatsuji, Y., Ashihara, Y., Fukawa, A., Arakawa, N., Takahashi, K., & Matsuo, Y. (2024) · Cognitive Systems Research · doi:10.1016/j.cogsys.2024.101300 · Cited by 2
Levels of Multimodal Interaction
Sinha, A. K., Kulkarni, C. E., & Olwal, A. (2024) · Companion Publication of the International Conference on Multimodal Interaction (ICMI Companion) · doi:10.1145/3686215.3690153 · Cited by 2
Künstliche Intelligenz, Klima und Bildung
Autenrieth, D., & Schluchter, J.-R. (2025) · merz | medien + erziehung · doi:10.21240/merz/2025.2.12 · Cited by 2
Counter-productivity and suspicion: two arguments against talking about the AGI control problem
Stenseke, J. (2025) · Philosophical Studies · doi:10.1007/s11098-025-02379-9 · Cited by 2
Towards Machine-Generated Code for the Resolution of User Intentions
Flerlage, J., Behnke, I., & Kao, O. (2025) · Frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications · doi:10.3233/faia250635 · Cited by 2
Izumo, T. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.07347 · Cited by 2
Bridging the Gap Between Multimodal Foundation Models and World ModelsPreprint
He, X. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.03727 · Cited by 2
Madras, D., Safyan, J., Qiuyi, & Zhang (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.08413 · Cited by 2
Regulating the Agency of LLM-based AgentsPreprint
Boddy, S., & Joseph, J. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.22735 · Cited by 2
The Rise and Fall of $G$ in AGIPreprint
Krakauer, D. C. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.09911 · Cited by 2
Grounded Scaling: Why Agentic AI Needs Deterministic EnvironmentsPreprint
Ding, L., & Wang, X. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.22495 · Cited by 2
Cosmos-Reason1: From Physical Common Sense To Embodied Reasoning
NVIDIA, :, Azzolini, A., Bai, J., Brandon, H., Cao, J., Chattopadhyay, P., Chen, H., Chu, J., Cui, Y., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.15558 · Cited by 187
I Think, Therefore I am: Benchmarking Awareness of Large Language Models Using AwareBench
Li, Y., Huang, Y., Lin, Y., Wu, S., Wan, Y., & Sun, L. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2401.17882 · Cited by 1
Self-Replicating Prompts for Large Language Models: Towards Artificial Culture
Stenzel, G., Zorn, M., Altmann, P. J., Mansky, M. B., Kölle, M., & Gabor, T. (2024) · Conference on Artificial Life (ALIFE) · doi:10.1162/isal_a_00813 · Cited by 1
What AIs are not learning (and why)
Stefik, M. (2025) · AI Magazine · doi:10.1002/aaai.12213 · Cited by 1
Will power-seeking AGIs harm human society?
Wang, M. (2025) · AI & Society · doi:10.1007/s00146-025-02572-8 · Cited by 1
Bounding Reason: Inferentialism, Naturalism, and the Discursive Agency of LLMs
Malík, J., & Hubálek, M. (2025) · Global Philosophy · doi:10.1007/s10516-025-09761-6 · Cited by 1
From Near and Afar: How Digitalization Is Shaping the Economic Geography and Conditioning Regulation
Wernberg, J. (2025) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-93365-3_2 · Cited by 1
Timaite, G., & Castelle, M. (2025) · Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI Ethics and Society · doi:10.1609/aies.v8i3.36733 · Cited by 1
Assessing the Relational Abilities of Large Language Models and Large Reasoning Models
Raemaekers, M., Finn, M., & Houwer, J. D. (2025) · Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.3390/bs16010045 · Cited by 1
The Fifth Industrial Revolution: A New Cognitive Era & Unprecedented Human-AI Collaboration
Woodring, D. (2026) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-05205-6_1 · Cited by 1
AI For Whom? Participation, Power and Educational Pathways in the Age of Artificial Intelligence
Autenrieth, D., Schluchter, J.-R., & Schulz, L. (2026) · European Journal of Education · doi:10.1111/ejed.70602 · Cited by 1
Understanding Artificial General Intelligence: Defining Characteristics and Benchmarks
Muhsen, D. K., & Sadiq, A. T. (2025) · Journal of Artificial Intelligence & Control Systems · doi:10.66967/jaics.2025.v1i103 · Cited by 1
КЛАСИФІКАЦІЯ РІВНІВ АВТОНОМНОСТІ АГЕНТНОГО ШІ В УПРАВЛІННІ ІТ-ПРОЄКТАМИ
Франків, Р., & Luchko, H. Y. (2026) · Економіка та суспільство · doi:10.32782/2524-0072/2026-85-185 · Cited by 1
AI as Functional Intelligence: Cognitive Modeling in Generative AI
Conversano, S. (2026) · Philosophy & Technology · doi:10.1007/s13347-026-01124-2 · Cited by 1
MedCalc-Pro: Solving Complex Medical Calculations with LLM Agents
Zhao, S., Hou, R., Huai, Z., Zhang, C., & Ruan, T. (2026) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP (Findings of EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/2026.findings-emnlp.1512 · Cited by 1
AI for Systems is "AGI-Complete"
Maas, M., Hashemi, M., McKinley, K., & Ranganathan, P. (2026) · ACM SIGOPS Operating Systems Review · doi:10.1145/3830422.3830425 · Cited by 1
Post-AGI Economies: Superposition and the Second Fundamental Theorem of Welfare Economics
Perrier, E. (2026) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-33195-3_13 · Cited by 1
Shi, F., Yang, J., Lifelo, Z., Ding, J., & Ning, H. (2026) · Artificial Intelligence Review · doi:10.1007/s10462-026-11691-7 · Cited by 1
Advancements in Machine Learning and Deep Learning
Darwish, D. A. M. (2024) · Advances in geospatial technologies book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3693-2913-9.ch006 · Cited by 1
Chair, H. E. I., & Serghini, A. A. (2025) · doi:10.7190/fintaf.v2i1.413 · Cited by 1
Mesnage, C. S., Wang, X., Dong, H., & Aishwaryaprajna, N. A. (2025) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-89366-7_3 · Cited by 1
Artificial general intelligence and misinformation: balancing innovation and ethical challenges
Shin, D. (2025) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-443-16104-9.00008-7 · Cited by 1
Knappe, J. (2024) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2411.10448 · Cited by 1
Language Games as the Pathway to Artificial Superhuman IntelligencePreprint
Wen, Y., Wan, Z., & Shao, Z. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.18924 · Cited by 1
What is an AI agent? A computer scientist explains the next wave of artificial intelligence tools
O'Neill, B. (2024) · The Conversation · doi:10.64628/aai.9nsq46cka · Cited by 1
Valipour, M., Zheng, K., Lowman, J., Szabados, S., Gartner, M., & BRASWELL, B. H. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.06057 · Cited by 1
On the Measure of a Model: From Intelligence to GeneralityPreprint
Dhar, R., Oldenburg, N., & Soegaard, A. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.11773 · Cited by 1
EGO: a Recursive and Self-Referential Cognitive Architecture for Artificial General IntelligencePreprint
Mangiante, A., Totaro, P., & Ninno, D. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.14011 · Cited by 1
GhostShell: Streaming LLM Function Calls for Concurrent Embodied ProgrammingPreprint
Gong, J., Huang, Y., Yuan, B., Zhu, M., Liao, Z., Liang, J., Zhan, J., Wang, J., Shu, H., Xu, Z., et al. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.05298 · Cited by 1
Robust Agents in Open-Ended WorldsPreprint
Samvelyan, M. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.08139 · Cited by 1
Safavi‐Naini, S. A. A., Meftah, E., Mohess, J., Kazaj, P. M., Siontis, G., Atf, Z., Lewis, P. R., Reyes, M., Nadkarni, G. N., Wiest, R., et al. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.08226 · Cited by 1
Sun, S., Hsieh, C.-P., Ladhak, F., Arakelyan, E., Serano, S. A., & Ginsburg, B. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.22832
SKYNET 2023 Conception of the Artificial Super Intelligence Project. A System Approach. ver. 3Preprint
Novikov, A. (2023) · OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) · doi:10.31219/osf.io/kqt9p
Więcej niż „trudny problem świadomości”: o możliwości powstania świadomej sztucznej inteligencji
Przybysz, P. (2025) · Człowiek i Społeczeństwo · doi:10.14746/cis.2024.58.4
Design for Interaction Types in Smart Caring Homes
Kim, N., Kim, N., Lee, Y., & Lee, Y. (2025) · Archives of Design Research · doi:10.15187/adr.2025.02.38.1.163
The Influence of Ideology on Innovation as Manifesting Imagination: The Case of Tescreal and AGI
Hüsig, S., & Bucher, J. (2025) · FEB International Scientific Conference · doi:10.18690/um.epf.5.2025.52
Belak, J., Nedelko, Z., Bongard, S., Dachkilgov, F., Düthmann, F., Flick, E., Mardani, K., Zakys, A., Korsos, G., Szakonyi, P., et al. (2025) · doi:10.18690/um.epf.5.2025
Machine Learning Strategies, Behavioral Challenges and Practical Solutions
van Dam, E. (2025) · Radboud University Press eBooks · doi:10.54195/9789465150864
W kierunku bezpiecznej przyszłości: etyczne i prawne problemy związane z pojazdami autonomicznymi
Szczęch, D. (2024) · Forum Polityki Kryminalnej · doi:10.31261/fpk.2024.07.05
Eidam, B., & Bauer, D. (2025) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-658-48158-2_5
Von der Automatisierung zur Autonomie: Generative KI und die Zukunft der Customer Experience
Müller, K., Haller, N.-I., Stauffenberg, L., Roos, K., & Hübbe, L. (2025) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-658-46399-1_74-1
The Measure of a Mind: Coming to Know in an Integrative Cognitive Science
Tomkins-Flanagan, E. (2025) · doi:10.22215/etd/2025-16618
Mesnage, C. S., Wang, X., Dong, H., & Aishwaryaprajna, N. A. (2025) · Intelligenza Artificiale · doi:10.1177/17248035251363882
Alarcón-Loza, S. (2025) · Lecture notes in networks and systems · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-99342-8_1
High vs. Low AGI: Ontology and Conceptual Taxonomy for Geopolitical CoherencePreprint
Max, A. (2025) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5570399
Metadata
- Authors
- Morris, M. R., Sohl-Dickstein, J., Fiedel, N., Warkentin, T., Dafoe, A., Faust, A., Farabet, C., & Legg, S.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2023
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2311.02462
- OpenAlex
- W4388481599
- Semantic Scholar
- c0a822ac56e47b6e4b99d5552d2998647abe8234
- Cited by
- 274
- References
- 45
- Citations by year
- 2026: 74 · 2025: 107 · 2024: 85 · 2023: 8
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- DeepMind
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Psychiatry, Mental Health, Neuroscience
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Artificial Intelligence Applications
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Keywords
- artificial general intelligence, AI autonomy, AI risk assessment, human-AI interaction, responsible AI deployment
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-11-08, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-08 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
