Mediaboss Marketing

Humanity could create an artificial intelligence (AI) agent that is just as smart as humans in as soon as the next three years, a leading scientist has claimed.

Ben Goertzel, a computer scientist and CEO of SingularityNET, made the claim during the closing remarks at the Beneficial AGI Summit 2024 on March 1 in Panama City, Panama. He is known as the "father of AGI" after helping to popularize the term artificial general intelligence (AGI) in the early 2000s.

The best AI systems in deployment today are considered "narrow AI" because they may be more capable than humans in one area, based on training data, but can't outperform humans more generally. These narrow AI systems, which range from machine learning algorithms to large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT, struggle to reason like humans and understand context.

However, Goertzel noted AI research is entering a period of exponential growth, and the evidence suggests that artificial general intelligence (AGI) where AI becomes just as capable as humans across several areas independent of the original training data is within reach. This hypothetical point in AI development is known as the "singularity."

Goertzel suggested 2029 or 2030 could be the likeliest years when humanity will build the first AGI agent, but that it could happen as early as 2027.

Related: Artificial general intelligence when AI becomes more capable than humans is just moments away, Meta's Mark Zuckerberg declares

If such an agent is designed to have access to and rewrite its own code, it could then very quickly evolve into an artificial super intelligence (ASI) which Goertzel loosely defined as an AI that has the cognitive and computing power of all of human civilization combined.

"No one has created human-level artificial general intelligence yet; nobody has a solid knowledge of when we're going to get there. I mean, there are known unknowns and probably unknown unknowns. On the other hand, to me it seems quite plausible we could get to human-level AGI within, let's say, the next three to eight years," Goertzel said.

He pointed to "three lines of converging evidence" to support his thesis. The first is modeling by computer scientist Ray Kurzweil in the book "The Singularity is Near" (Viking USA, 2005), which has been refined in his forthcoming book "The Singularity is Nearer" (Bodley Head, June 2024). In his book, Kurzweil built predictive models that suggest AGI will be achievable in 2029, largely centering on the exponential nature of technological growth in other fields.

Goertzel also pointed to improvements made to LLMs within a few years, which have "woken up so much of the world to the potential of AI." He clarified LLMs in themselves will not lead to AGI because the way they show knowledge doesn't represent genuine understanding, but that LLMs may be one component in a broad set of interconnected architectures.

The third piece of evidence, Goertzel said, lay in his work building such an infrastructure, which he has called "OpenCog Hyperon," as well as associated software systems and a forthcoming AGI programming language, dubbed "MeTTa," to support it.

OpenCog Hyperon is a form of AI infrastructure that involves stitching together existing and new AI paradigms, including LLMs as one component. The hypothetical endpoint is a large-scale distributed network of AI systems based on different architectures that each help to represent different elements of human cognition from content generation to reasoning.

Such an approach is a model other AI researchers have backed, including Databricks CTO Matei Zaharia in a blog post he co-authored on Feb. 18 on the Berkeley Artificial Intelligence Research (BAIR) website.

Goertzel admitted, however, that he "could be wrong" and that we may need a "quantum computer with a million qubits or something."

"My own view is once you get to human-level AGI, within a few years you could get a radically superhuman AGI unless the AGI threatens to throttle its own development out of its own conservatism," Goertzel added. "I think once an AGI can introspect its own mind, then it can do engineering and science at a human or superhuman level. It should be able to make a smarter AGI, then an even smarter AGI, then an intelligence explosion. That may lead to an increase in the exponential rate beyond even what Ray [Kurzweil] thought."

Go here to read the rest:
AI singularity may come in 2027 with artificial 'super intelligence' sooner than we think, says top scientist - Livescience.com

Before I began to write this article, one of my professors had given me the suggestion to use ChatGPT to create a title for this piece. I did not do that, and will be very offended if you think I did. However, I did decide to give ChatGPT a chance and typed, Can you please create a title for a school newspaper article which features three interviews with professors at Brandeis University discussing the potential benefits and drawback of ChatGPT in their respective fields of study and the classrooms in which they teach in? In response, I got:

Exploring the Impact of ChatGPT: Perspectives from Brandeis University Professors

Aside from the use of title making and the temptation of lightening ones neverending workload, AI usage has been a rising concern in the education sector, which can both serve as a resource and threaten the purpose of education in the first place. I was able to speak with three Brandeis professors community, all teaching different subjects and with different experiences regarding the use of ChatGPT and other forms of artificial intelligence in their classrooms.

On Feb. 13, I spoke with Prof. Elizabeth Bradfield (ENG). As a poet, Bradfield believes that AI should have no role in the creative process of writing poetry and other creative writing pieces. ChatGPT could be useful for things like getting lists of poems or finding useful information for a poem, but Bradfield said,I still have to do the reading and the thinking. She said using artificial intelligence would be the opposite of creating art.

When talking about the joy and emotions that accompany writing and the writing process, Bradfield added on, Why would I give that away to AI? As an educator, Bradfield would not encourage her students in the use of AI to create a poem. If she found out that someone had handed her a poem created by AI, Bradfield stated that it would be a huge betrayal of trust. And why would I want to waste my time writing feedback for an AI poem?

After speaking with Bradfield, I also got the opportunity to have a conversation with Prof. Dylan Cashman (COSI) on Feb. 29. Cashman teaches two Computer Science elective courses as well as a few introductory courses. When first discussing the invention of AI and its rising popularity, Cashman stated that it has changed a lot of peoples lives, regarding the ethical and professional questions that have risen out of its increased usage. When asked about what measures he would take in the case that a student handed a coded assignment using AI, Cashman replied with, I think we are still learning what to do in that case.

On the use of artificial intelligence in elective computer science courses versus introductory ones, Cashman said his greatest concern with the usage of AI in computer science classrooms would be, Do you care about the product that they are producing, or the process that they undergo while doing it? And I think its a case by case basis by class.

Cashman also mentioned the concern of the fairness of grading when grading an assignment with AI usage versus one without one, as many AI detecting softwares are not very accurate, according to Cashman. An increasing concern for Cashman has been maintaining the essence of the learning process, where he stated, In a formative assessment: I want them to hit a wall and I want them to get over that wall. That is truly the value of education. If someone uses AI I worry about that a lot.

However, Cashman believes that in some cases, like editing, writing and advanced electives more concerned with short-term research, using artificial intelligence can have an optimistic outcome. As a final remark, Cashman stated, I think people are trying to decide what policies and cultural norms about AI should be based on how AI is being used right now. And people should get aware of how it will get better.

Finally, on March 1, I was able to speak briefly about AI in the field of legal studies with Prof. Douglas Smith (LGLS), who began working at Brandeis as a Guberman Teaching Fellow. Smith works as the director of Legal and Education Programs with The Right to Immigration Institute. When asked about the use of AI in his professional career, Smith replied, I used it at a conference we just had, a law and society conference in Puerto Rico. I think its great. I dont think I would rely on it, but its great to talk to.

As an educator, Smith is not opposed to the use of ChatGPT by his students when used properly. I love ChatGPT. I encourage students to use it as a tool, as a research tool, and as a research tool they should cite it, said Smith.

From the various insights of these three educators, the common consensus seems to be that we are still figuring it out. ChatGPT and other artificial intelligence platforms and applications can be useful as a guide or aiding resource, but also presents bigger problems like corrupting academic integrity and presenting bigger implications for professional fields such as medicine and law.

Editors Note: Justice Arts & Culture Editor Nemma Kalra 26 is associated with The Right to Immigration Institute and was not consulted, did not contribute to, nor edit any parts of this article.

Read the original post:
Artificial Intelligence, Real Consequences: The use of Artificial Intelligence platforms in higher-education - The Justice

In 1889, a French doctor named Francois-Gilbert Viault climbed down from a mountain in the Andes, drew blood from his arm and inspected it under a microscope. Dr. Viaults red blood cells, which ferry oxygen, had surged 42 percent. He had discovered a mysterious power of the human body: When it needs more of these crucial cells, it can make them on demand.

In the early 1900s, scientists theorized that a hormone was the cause. They called the theoretical hormone erythropoietin, or red maker in Greek. Seven decades later, researchers found actual erythropoietin after filtering 670 gallons of urine.

And about 50 years after that, biologists in Israel announced they had found a rare kidney cell that makes the hormone when oxygen drops too low. Its called the Norn cell, named after the Norse deities who were believed to control human fate.

It took humans 134 years to discover Norn cells. Last summer, computers in California discovered them on their own in just six weeks.

The discovery came about when researchers at Stanford programmed the computers to teach themselves biology. The computers ran an artificial intelligence program similar to ChatGPT, the popular bot that became fluent with language after training on billions of pieces of text from the internet. But the Stanford researchers trained their computers on raw data about millions of real cells and their chemical and genetic makeup.

The researchers did not tell the computers what these measurements meant. They did not explain that different kinds of cells have different biochemical profiles. They did not define which cells catch light in our eyes, for example, or which ones make antibodies.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit andlog intoyour Times account, orsubscribefor all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?Log in.

Want all of The Times?Subscribe.

See more here:
A.I. Is Learning What It Means to Be Alive - The New York Times

New York City has quietly filled the role of director of artificial intelligence and machine learning, City & State has learned. In mid-January, Jiahao Chen, a former director of AI research at JPMorgan Chase and the founder of independent consulting company Responsible AI LLC, took on the role, which has been described by the citys Office of Technology and Innovation as spearheading the citys comprehensive AI strategy.

Despite Mayor Eric Adams administration publicizing the position last January, Chens hiring nearly a year later came without any fanfare or even an announcement. The first mention of Chen as director of AI came in a press release sent out by the Office of Technology and Innovation on Thursday morning, announcing next steps in the citys AI Action Plan. OTI Director of AI and Machine Learning Jiahao Chen will manage implementation of the Action Plan, the press release noted.

New York City previously had an AI director under former Mayor Bill de Blasios administration. Neal Parikh served as the citys director of AI under the office of former Chief Technology Officer John Paul Farmer, which released a citywide AI strategy in 2021. Under de Blasio, the city also had an algorithms management and policy officer to guide the city in the development, responsible use and assessment of algorithmic tools, which can include AI and machine learning. The old CTOs office and the work of the algorithms officer was consolidated along with the citys other technology-related offices into the new Office of Technology and Innovation at the outset of the Adams administration.

The Adams administration has referred to its own director of AI and machine learning as a new role, however, and has suggested that the position will be more empowered, in part because it is under the larger, centralized Office of Technology and Innovation. According to the job posting last January, which noted a $75,000 to $140,000 pay range, the director will be responsible for helping agencies use AI and machine learning tools responsibly, consulting with agencies on questions about AI use and governance, and serving as a subject matter expert on citywide policy and planning, among other things. How the role will actually work in practice remains to be seen.

The Adams administrations AI action plan was published in October, and isa 37-point road map aimed at helping the city responsibly harness the power of AI for good. On Thursday, the Office of Technology and Innovation announced the first update on the action plan, naming members of an advisory network that will consult on the citys work. That list includes former City Council Member Marjorie Velzquez, who is now vice president of policy at Tech:NYC. The office also released a set of AI principles and definitions, and guidance on generative AI.

OTI spokesperson Ray Legendre said that an offer for the position of director of AI was extended to Chen before the citys hiring freeze began last October. The office did not explicitly address why Chens hiring wasnt announced when he started the role. Over the past two months, Jiahao has been a key part of our ongoing efforts to implement the AI Action Plan, Legendre wrote in an email. Our focus at OTI over the past few months has been on making progress on the Action Plan which is what we announced today.

According to the website for Responsible AI LLC, Chens independent consulting company, Chens resume includes stints in academia as well as the private sector, including as a senior manager of data science at Capital One, and as director of AI research at JPMorgan Chase.

After City & State inquired about Chens role, Chen confirmed it on X, writing I can finally talk about my new job!

Original post:
The Adams administration quietly hired its first AI czar. Who is he? - City & State New York

March 7, 2024

WASHINGTON Today, partners in the Climate Action Against Disinformation coalition released a report that maps the risks that artificial intelligence poses to the climate crisis.

Topline points:

AI companies spread hype that they might save the planet, but currently they are doing just the opposite, said Michael Khoo, Climate Disinformation Program Director at Friends of the Earth. AI companies risk turbocharging climate disinformation, and their energy use is causing a dangerous increase to overall US consumption, with a corresponding increase of carbon emissions.

We are already seeing how generative AI is being weaponized to spin up climate disinformation or copy legitimate news sites to siphon off advertising revenue, said Sarah Kay Wiley, Director of Policy at Check My Ads, Adtech companies are woefully unprepared to deal with Generative AI and the opaque nature of the digital advertising industry means advertisers are not in control of where their ad dollars are going. Regulation is needed to help build transparency and accountability to ensure advertisers are able to decide whether to support AI generated content.

The evidence is clear: the production of AI is having a negative impact on the climate. The responsibility to address those impacts lie with the companies producing and releasing AI at a breakneck speed, said Nicole Sugerman, Campaign Manager at Kairos Fellowship. We must not allow another move fast and break things era in tech; weve already seen how the rapid, unregulated growth of social media platforms led to previously unimaginable levels of online and offline harm and violence. We can get it right this time, with regulation of AI companies that can protect our futures and the future of the planet.

The climate emergency cannot be confronted while online public & political discourse is polluted by fear, hate, confusion and conspiracy, said Oliver Hayes, Head of Policy & Campaigns at Global Action Plan. AI is supercharging these problems, making misinformation cheaper and easier to produce and share than ever before. In a year when 2 billion people are heading to the polls, this represents an existential threat to climate action. We should stop looking at AI through the benefit-only analysis and recognise that, in order to secure robust democracies and equitable climate policy, we must rein in big tech and regulate AI.

The skyrocketing use of electricity and water, combined with its ability to rapidly spread disinformation, makes AI one of the greatest emerging climate threat-multipliers, said Charlie Cray, Senior Strategist at Greenpeace USA, Governments and companies must stop pretending that increasing equipment efficiencies and directing AI tools towards weather disaster responses are enough to mitigate AIs contribution to the climate emergency.

Previously, the coalition submitted letters to President Biden and Senator Chuck Schumer that call on them to implement climate concerns into proposed AI legislation. The letters echo recommendations made in the report, including:

Communications contact: Erika Seiber, [emailprotected]

See the rest here:
Report: Artificial Intelligence A Threat to Climate Change, Energy Usage and Disinformation - Friends of the Earth