Table of Contents Categories
  Encyclosphere.org ENCYCLOREADER
  supported by EncyclosphereKSF

Progress in artificial intelligence

From HandWiki - Reading time: 23 min

Short description: How AI-related technologies evolve
See also: History of artificial intelligence and Timeline of artificial intelligence
Artificial intelligence
Major goals
Approaches
Philosophy
History
Technology
Glossary
Artificial intelligence, especially foundation models, has made rapid progress, surpassing human capabilities in various benchmarks.

Progress in artificial intelligence (AI) refers to the advances, milestones, and breakthroughs that have been achieved in the field of artificial intelligence over time. AI is a branch of computer science that aims to create machines and systems capable of performing tasks that typically require human intelligence. AI applications have been used in a wide range of fields including medical diagnosis, finance, robotics, law, video games, agriculture, and scientific discovery. The society as a whole is looking for artificial intelligence to be on a key factor in the upcming years because of its potential. However, many AI applications are not perceived as AI: "A lot of cutting-edge AI has filtered into general applications, often without being called AI because once something becomes useful enough and common enough it's not labeled AI anymore."[1][2]

"Many thousands of AI applications are deeply embedded in the infrastructure of every industry."[3] In the late 1990s and early 2000s, AI technology became widely used as elements of larger systems,[3][4] but the field was rarely credited for these successes at the time.

Kaplan and Haenlein structure artificial intelligence along three evolutionary stages:

  1. Artificial narrow intelligence – AI capable only of specific tasks;
  2. Artificial general intelligence – AI with ability in several areas, and able to autonomously solve problems they were never even designed for;
  3. Artificial superintelligence – AI capable of general tasks, including scientific creativity, social skills, and general wisdom.[2]

To allow comparison with human performance, artificial intelligence can be evaluated on constrained and well-defined problems. Such tests have been termed subject-matter expert Turing tests. Also, smaller problems provide more achievable goals and there are an ever-increasing number of positive results.

In 2023, humans still substantially outperformed both GPT-4 and other models tested on the ConceptARC benchmark. Those models scored 60% on most, and 77% on one category, while humans scored 91% on all and 97% on one category.[5] However, later research in 2025 showed that human-generated output grids were only accurate 73% of the time, while AI models available that year managed to score above 77%.[6]

Current performance in specific areas

Game Champion year[7] Legal states (log10)[8] Game tree complexity (log10)[8] Game of perfect information? Ref.
Draughts (checkers) 1994 21 31 Perfect [9]
Othello (reversi) 1997 28 58 Perfect [10]
Chess 1997 46 123 Perfect
Scrabble 2006 [11]
Shogi 2017 71 226 Perfect [12]
Go 2017 172 360 Perfect
2p no-limit hold 'em 2017 Imperfect [13]
StarCraft - 270+ Imperfect [14]
StarCraft II 2019 Imperfect [15]

There are many useful abilities that can be described as showing some form of intelligence. This gives better insight into the comparative success of artificial intelligence in different areas.

AI, like electricity or the steam engine, is a general-purpose technology. There is no consensus on how to characterize which tasks AI tends to excel at.[16] Some versions of Moravec's paradox observe that humans are more likely to outperform machines in areas such as physical dexterity that have been the direct target of natural selection.[17] While projects such as AlphaZero have succeeded in generating their own knowledge from scratch, many other machine learning projects require large training datasets.[18][19] Researcher Andrew Ng has suggested, as a "highly imperfect rule of thumb", that "almost anything a typical human can do with less than one second of mental thought, we can probably now or in the near future automate using AI."[20]

Games provide a high-profile benchmark for assessing rates of progress; many games have a large professional player base and a well-established competitive rating system. AlphaGo brought the era of classical board-game benchmarks to a close when Artificial Intelligence proved their competitive edge over humans in 2016. Deep Mind's AlphaGo AI software program defeated the world's best professional Go Player Lee Sedol.[21] Games of imperfect knowledge provide new challenges to AI in the area of game theory; the most prominent milestone in this area was brought to a close by Libratus' poker victory in 2017.[22][23] E-sports continue to provide additional benchmarks; Facebook AI, Deepmind, and others have engaged with the popular StarCraft franchise of videogames.[24][25]

Broad classes of outcome for an AI test may be given as:

  • optimal: it is not possible to perform better (note: some of these entries were solved by humans)
  • super-human: performs better than all humans
  • high-human: performs better than most humans
  • par-human: performs similarly to most humans
  • sub-human: performs worse than most humans

Optimal

See also: Solved game
  • Tic-tac-toe
  • Connect Four: 1988
  • Checkers (aka 8x8 draughts): Weakly solved (2007)[26]
  • Rubik's Cube: Mostly solved (2010)[27]
  • Heads-up limit hold'em poker: Statistically optimal in the sense that "a human lifetime of play is not sufficient to establish with statistical significance that the strategy is not an exact solution" (2015)[28]

Super-human

High-human

Par-human

Sub-human

Proposed tests of artificial intelligence

In his famous Turing test, Alan Turing picked language, the defining feature of human beings, for its basis.[74] The Turing test is now considered too exploitable to be a meaningful benchmark.[75]

The Feigenbaum test, proposed by the inventor of expert systems, tests a machine's knowledge and expertise about a specific subject.[76] A paper by Jim Gray of Microsoft in 2003 suggested extending the Turing test to speech understanding, speaking and recognizing objects and behavior.[77]

Proposed "universal intelligence" tests aim to compare how well machines, humans, and even non-human animals perform on problem sets that are generic as possible. At an extreme, the test suite can contain every possible problem, weighted by Kolmogorov complexity; however, these problem sets tend to be dominated by impoverished pattern-matching exercises where a tuned AI can easily exceed human performance levels.[78][79][80][81][82]

Exams

According to OpenAI, in 2023 GPT-4 achieved high scores on several standardized and professional examinations, including around the 90th percentile on the Uniform Bar Exam, the 89th percentile on the mathematics section of the SAT, the 93rd percentile on SAT Reading and Writing, the 54th percentile on the analytical writing section of the GRE, the 88th percentile on GRE quantitative reasoning, and the 99th percentile on GRE verbal reasoning. OpenAI also reported that GPT-4 scored in the 99th to 100th percentile on the 2020 USA Biology Olympiad semifinal exam and earned top scores on several AP exams.[83]

Independent researchers found in 2023 that ChatGPT based on GPT-3.5 performed "at or near the passing threshold" on all three parts of the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE), suggesting that large language models could reach passing-level performance on some medical knowledge assessments even without domain-specific fine-tuning.[84] GPT-3.5 was also reported to attain a low but passing grade on examinations for four law school courses at the University of Minnesota.[83]

Further studies reported that GPT-4 passed a text-based radiology board-style examination.[85] Later radiology studies in 2024–2025 continued to find strong performance by newer models on exam-style questions, including image-based and student radiology examinations, while also noting persistent weaknesses and variation by task type.[86][87]

By 2025, comparative studies found substantial variation in medical-exam performance across models rather than a uniform "passing" level. A 2025 benchmarking study on publicly available USMLE sample questions reported that newer models such as ChatGPT and DeepSeek outperformed some rivals, but also made distinct errors and still showed limitations in clinical reasoning and domain-specific understanding.[88]

Newer legal benchmarks published in 2025 likewise suggested that exam performance remained uneven. The LEXam benchmark, built from 340 law exams across 116 law school courses, found that long-form legal reasoning remained challenging for contemporary large language models, especially on open-ended questions requiring structured, multi-step analysis.[89]

By 2026, broader work on expert-level academic testing emphasized that many older benchmarks and exam-style tasks were becoming saturated. A 2026 Nature paper introducing Humanity's Last Exam argued that state-of-the-art systems had surpassed 90% accuracy on several popular benchmarks, while still showing low accuracy on a more difficult benchmark designed to test the frontier of expert human knowledge.[90] Stanford HAI also cautioned in 2025 that benchmark and exam performance should not be treated as equivalent to reliable real-world performance or trustworthy decision-making.[91]

Competitions

Main article: Competitions and prizes in artificial intelligence

Many competitions and prizes, such as the Imagenet Challenge, promote research in artificial intelligence. The most common areas of competition include general machine intelligence, conversational behavior, data-mining, robotic cars, and robot soccer as well as conventional games.[92]

Past and current predictions

An expert poll around 2016, conducted by Katja Grace of the Future of Humanity Institute and associates, gave median estimates of 3 years for championship Angry Birds, 4 years for the World Series of Poker, and 6 years for StarCraft. On more subjective tasks, the poll gave 6 years for folding laundry as well as an average human worker, 7–10 years for expertly answering 'easily Googleable' questions, 8 years for average speech transcription, 9 years for average telephone banking, and 11 years for expert songwriting, but over 30 years for writing a New York Times bestseller or winning the Putnam math competition.[93][94][95]

Subsequent developments in the late 2010s and early 2020s showed rapid progress in several benchmark tasks, particularly in games and structured problem domains. Systems such as AlphaGo, AlphaZero, and later large language models achieved or exceeded human-level performance on a range of established benchmarks.[96][97][98]

At the same time, researchers have noted that performance on narrow benchmarks can saturate as systems are optimized for specific tasks, and that success on such evaluations does not necessarily generalize to broader forms of intelligence.[99]

Chess

Deep Blue at the Computer History Museum

An AI defeated a grandmaster in a regulation tournament game for the first time in 1988; rebranded as Deep Blue, it beat the reigning human world chess champion in 1997 (see Deep Blue versus Garry Kasparov).[100]

By the 2010s, chess engines running on consumer hardware had surpassed top human players by a wide margin. Neural-network-based systems such as AlphaZero demonstrated that superhuman performance could be achieved through reinforcement learning from self-play without reliance on human expert data.[101] Modern engines are widely used in preparation and analysis, and unaided human play is no longer competitive with top computer systems.

Estimates when computers would exceed humans at Chess
Year prediction made Predicted year Number of years Predictor Contemporaneous source
1957 1967 or sooner 10 or less Herbert A. Simon, economist[102]
1990 2000 or sooner 10 or less Ray Kurzweil, futurist Age of Intelligent Machines[103]

Go

AlphaGo defeated a European Go champion in October 2015, and Lee Sedol in March 2016, one of the world's top players (see AlphaGo versus Lee Sedol). According to Scientific American and other sources, most observers had expected superhuman Computer Go performance to be at least a decade away.[104][105][106]

Subsequent systems such as AlphaGo Zero and AlphaZero demonstrated that superhuman performance could be achieved without human training data, using reinforcement learning from self-play.[107] By the late 2010s, computer Go programs had surpassed human champions by a substantial margin, and Go ceased to be a primary frontier benchmark for AI research.

Estimates when computers would exceed humans at Go
Year prediction made Predicted year Number of years Predictor Affiliation Contemporaneous source
1997 2100 or later 103 or more Piet Hutt, physicist and Go fan Institute for Advanced Study New York Times[108][109]
2007 2017 or sooner 10 or less Feng-Hsiung Hsu, Deep Blue lead Microsoft Research Asia IEEE Spectrum[110][111]
2014 2024 10 Rémi Coulom, Computer Go programmer CrazyStone Wired[111][112]

Human-level artificial general intelligence (AGI)

AI pioneer and economist Herbert A. Simon inaccurately predicted in 1965: "Machines will be capable, within twenty years, of doing any work a man can do". Similarly, in 1970 Marvin Minsky wrote that "Within a generation... the problem of creating artificial intelligence will substantially be solved."[113]

Four polls conducted in 2012 and 2013 suggested that the median estimate among experts for when AGI would arrive was 2040 to 2050, depending on the poll.[114][115]

The Grace poll around 2016 found results varied depending on how the question was framed. Respondents asked to estimate "when unaided machines can accomplish every task better and more cheaply than human workers" gave an aggregated median answer of 45 years and a 10% chance of it occurring within 9 years. Other respondents asked to estimate "when all occupations are fully automatable. That is, when for any occupation, machines could be built to carry out the task better and more cheaply than human workers" estimated a median of 122 years and a 10% probability of 20 years. The median response for when "AI researcher" could be fully automated was around 90 years. No link was found between seniority and optimism, but Asian researchers were much more optimistic than North American researchers on average; Asians predicted 30 years on average for "accomplish every task", compared with the 74 years predicted by North Americans.[93][94][95]

A larger survey of 2,778 researchers who had published in top AI venues, fielded in 2023 and published in 2025, found shorter timelines for what it called "high-level machine intelligence". In that survey, the aggregate forecast assigned a 10% chance to unaided machines outperforming humans at every task by 2027 and a 50% chance by 2047. The same survey estimated that the full automation of all human occupations would reach a 10% probability by 2037 and a 50% probability by 2116.[116]

Despite increasingly short timelines in some surveys, there was still no consensus in late 2025 and early 2026 that AGI was imminent. In Stanford HAI's predictions for 2026, co-director James Landay said: "there will be no AGI this year".[117]

Estimates of when AGI will arrive
Year prediction made Predicted year Number of years Predictor Contemporaneous source
1965 1985 or sooner 20 or less Herbert A. Simon The shape of automation for men and management[113][118]
1993 2023 or sooner 30 or less Vernor Vinge, science fiction writer "The Coming Technological Singularity"[119]
1995 2040 or sooner 45 or less Hans Moravec, robotics researcher Wired[120]
2008 Never / Distant future[note 1] Gordon E. Moore, inventor of Moore's Law IEEE Spectrum[121]
2017 2029 12 Ray Kurzweil Interview[122]
2025 2027 or later 2 or more James Landay Stanford HAI[123]

See also

References

  1. ↑ AI set to exceed human brain power CNN.com (July 26, 2006)
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 Kaplan, Andreas; Haenlein, Michael (2019). "Siri, Siri, in my hand: Who's the fairest in the land? On the interpretations, illustrations, and implications of artificial intelligence". Business Horizons 62: 15–25. doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2018.08.004. 
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 Kurtzweil 2005, p. 264
  4. ↑ National Research Council (1999), "Developments in Artificial Intelligence", Funding a Revolution: Government Support for Computing Research, National Academy Press, ISBN 978-0-309-06278-7, OCLC 246584055, https://archive.org/details/fundingrevolutio00nati  under "Artificial Intelligence in the 90s"
  5. ↑ Biever, Celeste (25 July 2023). "ChatGPT broke the Turing test — the race is on for new ways to assess AI". Nature. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-02361-7?. 
  6. ↑ Beger, Claas; Yi, Ryan; Fu, Shuhao; Moskvichev, Arseny; Tsai, Sarah W.; Rajamanickam, Sivasankaran; Mitchell, Melanie (6 October 2025). "Do AI Models Perform Human-like Abstract Reasoning Across Modalities?". arXiv:2510.02125 [cs.AI]. we found that human-generated output grids achieved an overall pass@1 accuracy of 73% on the 480 ConceptARC tasks, lower than that of the top reasoning models in the textual modality.
  7. ↑ Approximate year AI started beating top human experts
  8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 van den Herik, H.Jaap; Uiterwijk, Jos W.H.M.; van Rijswijck, Jack (January 2002). "Games solved: Now and in the future". Artificial Intelligence 134 (1–2): 277–311. doi:10.1016/S0004-3702(01)00152-7. 
  9. ↑ Madrigal, Alexis C. (2017). "How Checkers Was Solved". The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/07/marion-tinsley-checkers/534111/. 
  10. ↑ 10.0 10.1 "www.othello-club.de". http://berg.earthlingz.de/ocd/programs.php?lang=en. 
  11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 Webley, Kayla (15 February 2011). "Top 10 Man-vs.-Machine Moments". Time. https://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2049187_2049195_2049083,00.html. Retrieved 28 December 2017. 
  12. ↑ 12.0 12.1 "Shogi prodigy breathes new life into the game | The Japan Times" (in en-US). The Japan Times. https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2017/06/29/editorials/shogi-prodigy-breathes-new-life-game/#.W0svONUza01. 
  13. ↑ 13.0 13.1 Brown, Noam; Sandholm, Tuomas (2017). "Superhuman AI for heads-up no-limit poker: Libratus beats top professionals". Science 359 (6374): 418–424. doi:10.1126/science.aao1733. PMID 29249696. Bibcode: 2018Sci...359..418B. 
  14. ↑ "Facebook Quietly Enters StarCraft War for AI Bots, and Loses". WIRED. 2017. https://www.wired.com/story/facebook-quietly-enters-starcraft-war-for-ai-bots-and-loses/. Retrieved 6 May 2018. 
  15. ↑ Sample, Ian (30 October 2019). "AI becomes grandmaster in 'fiendishly complex' StarCraft II". The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/oct/30/ai-becomes-grandmaster-in-fiendishly-complex-starcraft-ii. 
  16. ↑ Brynjolfsson, Erik; Mitchell, Tom (22 December 2017). "What can machine learning do? Workforce implications" (in en). Science 358 (6370): 1530–1534. doi:10.1126/science.aap8062. PMID 29269459. Bibcode: 2017Sci...358.1530B. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aap8062. Retrieved 7 May 2018. 
  17. ↑ "IKEA furniture and the limits of AI" (in en). The Economist. 2018. https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21740735-humans-have-had-good-run-most-recent-breakthrough-robotics-it-clear. 
  18. ↑ Sample, Ian (18 October 2017). "'It's able to create knowledge itself': Google unveils AI that learns on its own" (in en). the Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/oct/18/its-able-to-create-knowledge-itself-google-unveils-ai-learns-all-on-its-own. 
  19. ↑ "The AI revolution in science" (in en). Science | AAAS. 5 July 2017. https://www.science.org/content/article/ai-revolution-science. 
  20. ↑ "Will your job still exist in 10 years when the robots arrive?" (in en). South China Morning Post. 2017. https://www.scmp.com/tech/innovation/article/2098164/robots-are-coming-here-are-some-jobs-wont-exist-10-years. 
  21. ↑ Mokyr, Joel (2019-11-01). "The Technology Trap: Capital Labor, and Power in the Age of Automation. By Carl Benedikt Frey. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2019. Pp. 480. $29.95, hardcover.". The Journal of Economic History 79 (4): 1183–1189. doi:10.1017/s0022050719000639. ISSN 0022-0507. 
  22. ↑ Borowiec, Tracey Lien, Steven (2016). "AlphaGo beats human Go champ in milestone for artificial intelligence". Los Angeles Times. https://www.latimes.com/world/asia/la-fg-korea-alphago-20160312-story.html. 
  23. ↑ Brown, Noam; Sandholm, Tuomas (26 January 2018). "Superhuman AI for heads-up no-limit poker: Libratus beats top professionals" (in en). Science 359 (6374): 418–424. doi:10.1126/science.aao1733. PMID 29249696. Bibcode: 2018Sci...359..418B. 
  24. ↑ Ontanon, Santiago; Synnaeve, Gabriel; Uriarte, Alberto; Richoux, Florian; Churchill, David; Preuss, Mike (December 2013). "A Survey of Real-Time Strategy Game AI Research and Competition in StarCraft". IEEE Transactions on Computational Intelligence and AI in Games 5 (4): 293–311. doi:10.1109/TCIAIG.2013.2286295. 
  25. ↑ "Facebook Quietly Enters StarCraft War for AI Bots, and Loses". WIRED. 2017. https://www.wired.com/story/facebook-quietly-enters-starcraft-war-for-ai-bots-and-loses/. Retrieved 7 May 2018. 
  26. ↑ Schaeffer, J.; Burch, N.; Bjornsson, Y.; Kishimoto, A.; Muller, M.; Lake, R.; Lu, P.; Sutphen, S. (2007). "Checkers is solved". Science 317 (5844): 1518–1522. doi:10.1126/science.1144079. PMID 17641166. Bibcode: 2007Sci...317.1518S. 
  27. ↑ "God's Number is 20". http://www.cube20.org/. 
  28. ↑ Bowling, M.; Burch, N.; Johanson, M.; Tammelin, O. (2015). "Heads-up limit hold'em poker is solved". Science 347 (6218): 145–9. doi:10.1126/science.1259433. PMID 25574016. Bibcode: 2015Sci...347..145B. 
  29. ↑ "In Major AI Breakthrough, Google System Secretly Beats Top Player at the Ancient Game of Go". WIRED. https://www.wired.com/2016/01/in-a-huge-breakthrough-googles-ai-beats-a-top-player-at-the-game-of-go/. Retrieved 28 December 2017. 
  30. ↑ Sheppard, B. (2002). "World-championship-caliber Scrabble". Artificial Intelligence 134 (1–2): 241–275. doi:10.1016/S0004-3702(01)00166-7. 
  31. ↑ Tesauro, Gerald (March 1995). "Temporal difference learning and TD-Gammon". Communications of the ACM 38 (3): 58–68. doi:10.1145/203330.203343. http://www.research.ibm.com/massive/tdl.html. Retrieved 2008-03-26. 
  32. ↑ Tesauro, Gerald (January 2002). "Programming backgammon using self-teaching neural nets". Artificial Intelligence 134 (1–2): 181–199. doi:10.1016/S0004-3702(01)00110-2. "...at least two other neural net programs also appear to be capable of superhuman play". 
  33. ↑ "Kramnik vs Deep Fritz: Computer wins match by 4:2" (in en-US). Chess News. 2006-12-05. https://en.chessbase.com/post/kramnik-vs-deep-fritz-computer-wins-match-by-4-2. 
  34. ↑ "The Week in Chess 771". http://theweekinchess.com/html/twic771.html#13. 
  35. ↑ Nickel, Arno (May 2017). "Zor Winner in an Exciting Photo Finish". Innovative Solutions. http://www.infinitychess.com/Page/Public/Article/DefaultArticle.aspx?id=322. "... on third place the best centaur ..." 
  36. ↑ Markoff, John (2011-02-16). "Computer Wins on 'Jeopardy!': Trivial, It's Not" (in en-US). The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. https://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/17/science/17jeopardy-watson.html. 
  37. ↑ Jackson, Joab. "IBM Watson Vanquishes Human Jeopardy Foes". IDG News. PC World. https://www.pcworld.com/article/219893/ibm_watson_vanquishes_human_jeopardy_foes.html. 
  38. ↑ "The Arimaa Challenge". http://arimaa.com/arimaa/challenge/. 
  39. ↑ Roeder, Oliver (10 July 2017). "The Bots Beat Us. Now What?". FiveThirtyEight. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-bots-beat-us-now-what/. 
  40. ↑ "AlphaGo beats Ke Jie again to wrap up three-part match". The Verge. https://www.theverge.com/2017/5/25/15689462/alphago-ke-jie-game-2-result-google-deepmind-china. 
  41. ↑ Blair, Alan; Saffidine, Abdallah (30 August 2019). "AI surpasses humans at six-player poker". Science 365 (6456): 864–865. doi:10.1126/science.aay7774. PMID 31467208. Bibcode: 2019Sci...365..864B. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aay7774. Retrieved 30 June 2022. 
  42. ↑ "Sony's new AI driver achieves 'reliably superhuman' race times in Gran Turismo". The Verge. https://www.theverge.com/2022/2/9/22925420/sony-ai-gran-turismo-driving-gt-sophy-nature-paper. 
  43. ↑ Keim, Greg A.; Shazeer, Noam; Littman, Michael L. (1999). "Proverb: The probabilistic cruciverbalist". pp. 710–717. 
  44. ↑ Wernick, Adam (24 Sep 2014). "'Dr. Fill' vies for crossword solving supremacy, but still comes up short". Public Radio International. http://www.pri.org/stories/2014-09-24/dr-fill-vies-crossword-solving-supremacy-still-comes-short. 
  45. ↑ "Arago's AI can now beat some human players at complex civ strategy games.". TechCrunch. 6 December 2016. https://techcrunch.com/2016/12/06/aragos-ai-can-now-beat-some-human-players-at-complex-civ-strategy-games/. 
  46. ↑ "AI bots trained for 180 years a day to beat humans at Dota 2.". The Verge. 25 June 2018. https://www.theverge.com/2018/6/25/17492918/openai-dota-2-bot-ai-five-5v5-matches. 
  47. ↑ Bethe, Paul M. (2009). "The state of automated bridge play". Computers and Games (Springer). 
  48. ↑ "AlphaStar: Mastering the Real-Time Strategy Game StarCraft II". 24 January 2019. https://deepmind.com/blog/alphastar-mastering-the-real-time-strategy-game-starcraft-ii. 
  49. ↑ "Suphx: The World Best Mahjong AI". https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/project/suphx-mastering-mahjong-with-deep-reinforcement-learning/. 
  50. ↑ "Mastering Stratego with Model-Free Multiagent Reinforcement Learning". Science. 2022. 
  51. ↑ Bakhtin, Anton; Wu, David; Lerer, Adam; Gray, Jonathan; Jacob, Athul; Farina, Gabriele; Miller, Alexander; Brown, Noam (11 October 2022). "Mastering the Game of No-Press Diplomacy via Human-Regularized Reinforcement Learning and Planning". arXiv:2210.05492 [cs.GT].
  52. ↑ Hu, Hengyuan; Wu, David; Lerer, Adam; Foerster, Jakob; Brown, Noam (11 October 2022). "Human-AI Coordination via Human-Regularized Search and Learning". arXiv:2210.05125 [cs.AI].
  53. ↑ Devlin, Jacob; Chang, Ming-Wei; Lee, Kenton; Toutanova, Kristina (2019). "BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding". NAACL-HLT. 
  54. ↑ "Microsoft researchers say their newest deep learning system beats humans -- and Google - VentureBeat - Big Data - by Jordan Novet". VentureBeat. 2015-02-10. https://venturebeat.com/2015/02/09/microsoft-researchers-say-their-newest-deep-learning-system-beats-humans-and-google/. 
  55. ↑ Santoro, Adam; Bartunov, Sergey; Botvinick, Matthew; Wierstra, Daan; Lillicrap, Timothy (19 May 2016). "One-shot Learning with Memory-Augmented Neural Networks". p. 5, Table 1. arXiv:1605.06065 [cs.LG]. 4.2. Omniglot Classification: "The network exhibited high classification accuracy on just the second presentation of a sample from a class within an episode (82.8%), reaching up to 94.9% accuracy by the fifth instance and 98.1% accuracy by the tenth.
  56. ↑ "Man Versus Machine: Who Wins When It Comes to Facial Recognition?". Neuroscience News. 2018-12-03. https://neurosciencenews.com/man-machine-facial-recognition-120191/. 
  57. ↑ Yan, Ming; Xu, Haiyang; Li, Chenliang; Tian, Junfeng; Bi, Bin; Wang, Wei; Chen, Weihua; Xu, Xianzhe; Wang, Fan; Cao, Zheng; Zhang, Zhicheng; Zhang, Qiyu; Zhang, Ji; Huang, Songfang; Huang, Fei; Si, Luo; Jin, Rong (17 November 2021). "Achieving Human Parity on Visual Question Answering". arXiv:2111.08896 [cs.CL].
  58. ↑ 58.0 58.1 Zhang, D., Mishra, S., Brynjolfsson, E., Etchemendy, J., Ganguli, D., Grosz, B., ... & Perrault, R. (2021). The AI index 2021 annual report. AI Index (Stanford University). arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.06312.
  59. ↑ Metz, Cade (4 September 2019). "A Breakthrough for A.I. Technology: Passing an 8th-Grade Science Test". The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/04/technology/artificial-intelligence-aristo-passed-test.html. 
  60. ↑ 60.0 60.1 60.2 van der Maas, Han L.J.; Snoek, Lukas; Stevenson, Claire E. (2021). "How much intelligence is there in artificial intelligence? A 2020 update". Intelligence 87. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2021.101548. 
  61. ↑ McMillan, Robert (2015). "Google's AI Is Now Smart Enough to Play Atari Like the Pros". Wired. https://www.wired.com/2015/02/google-ai-plays-atari-like-pros/. Retrieved 5 January 2023. 
  62. ↑ Smith, Ray (2007). "An Overview of the Tesseract OCR Engine". Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Document Analysis and Recognition. doi:10.1109/ICDAR.2007.4376991. 
  63. ↑ He, Kaiming; Zhang, Xiangyu; Ren, Shaoqing; Sun, Jian (2016). "Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognition". Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. doi:10.1109/CVPR.2016.90. 
  64. ↑ "Robots with legs are getting ready to walk among us". The Verge. 2017-02-22. https://www.theverge.com/2017/2/22/14635530/bipedal-legged-robots-mobility-advantages. 
  65. ↑ Hurst, Nathan. "Why Funny, Falling, Soccer-Playing Robots Matter". Smithsonian. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/why-funny-falling-soccer-playing-robots-matter-180964260/. 
  66. ↑ "The Business of Artificial Intelligence". Harvard Business Review. 2017-07-18. https://hbr.org/cover-story/2017/07/the-business-of-artificial-intelligence. 
  67. ↑ Brynjolfsson, Erik; Mitchell, Tom (2017). "What can machine learning do? Workforce implications". Science 358 (6370): 1530–1534. doi:10.1126/science.aap8062. 
  68. ↑ Nie, Weili; Yu, Zhaowei; Mao, Liqiang; Patel, Ankit B.; Zhu, Yuke; Anandkumar, Anima (2020). "Bongard-LOGO: A New Benchmark for Human-level Concept Learning and Reasoning". Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33. 
  69. ↑ "The AI Index 2021 Annual Report". Stanford AI Index. 2021. https://arxiv.org/abs/2103.06312. 
  70. ↑ Fischer, Thomas; Krauss, Christopher (2018). "Deep learning with long short-term memory networks for financial market predictions". European Journal of Operational Research 270 (2): 654–669. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2017.11.054. 
  71. ↑ Stephenson, Matthew; Renz, Jochen; Ge, Xiaoyu (2020). "The computational complexity of Angry Birds". Artificial Intelligence 280. doi:10.1016/j.artint.2019.103232. 
  72. ↑ Koehn, Philipp (2020). Neural Machine Translation. Cambridge University Press. 
  73. ↑ Navigli, Roberto (2009). "Word Sense Disambiguation: A Survey". ACM Computing Surveys 41 (2). doi:10.1145/1459352.1459355. 
  74. ↑ Turing, Alan (October 1950), "Computing Machinery and Intelligence", Mind LIX (236): 433–460, doi:10.1093/mind/LIX.236.433, ISSN 0026-4423 
  75. ↑ Schoenick, Carissa; Clark, Peter; Tafjord, Oyvind; Turney, Peter; Etzioni, Oren (23 August 2017). "Moving beyond the Turing Test with the Allen AI Science Challenge". Communications of the ACM 60 (9): 60–64. doi:10.1145/3122814. 
  76. ↑ Feigenbaum, Edward A. (2003). "Some challenges and grand challenges for computational intelligence". Journal of the ACM 50 (1): 32–40. doi:10.1145/602382.602400. 
  77. ↑ Gray, Jim (2003). "What Next? A Dozen Information-Technology Research Goals". Journal of the ACM 50 (1): 41–57. doi:10.1145/602382.602401. Bibcode: 1999cs.......11005G. 
  78. ↑ Hernandez-Orallo, Jose (2000). "Beyond the Turing Test". Journal of Logic, Language and Information 9 (4): 447–466. doi:10.1023/A:1008367325700. 
  79. ↑ Kuang-Cheng, Andy Wang (2023). "International licensing under an endogenous tariff in vertically-related markets" (in en). https://ingestai.io/. 
  80. ↑ Dowe, D. L.; Hajek, A. R. (1997). "A computational extension to the Turing Test". Proceedings of the 4th Conference of the Australasian Cognitive Science Society. http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/publications/1997/tr-cs97-322-abs.html. 
  81. ↑ Hernandez-Orallo, J.; Dowe, D. L. (2010). "Measuring Universal Intelligence: Towards an Anytime Intelligence Test". Artificial Intelligence 174 (18): 1508–1539. doi:10.1016/j.artint.2010.09.006. 
  82. ↑ Hernández-Orallo, José; Dowe, David L.; Hernández-Lloreda, M.Victoria (March 2014). "Universal psychometrics: Measuring cognitive abilities in the machine kingdom". Cognitive Systems Research 27: 50–74. doi:10.1016/j.cogsys.2013.06.001. 
  83. ↑ 83.0 83.1 Varanasi, Lakshmi (March 2023). "AI models like ChatGPT and GPT-4 are acing everything from the bar exam to AP Biology. Here's a list of difficult exams both AI versions have passed". Business Insider. https://www.businessinsider.com/list-here-are-the-exams-chatgpt-has-passed-so-far-2023-1. 
  84. ↑ Kung, Tony H.; Cheatham, Morgan; Medinilla, Arielle; Sillos, Czarina; Leon, Lorie de; Elepaño, Camille; Madriaga, Maria; Aggabao, Rimsha et al. (2023). "Performance of ChatGPT on USMLE: Potential for AI-assisted medical education using large language models". PLOS Digital Health 2 (2). doi:10.1371/journal.pdig.0000198. PMID 36812645. 
  85. ↑ Bhayana, Rajesh; Bleakney, Robert R.; Krishna, Satheesh (1 June 2023). "GPT-4 in Radiology: Improvements in Advanced Reasoning". Radiology 307 (5). doi:10.1148/radiol.230987. PMID 37191491. https://pubs.rsna.org/doi/10.1148/radiol.230987. 
  86. ↑ Gotta, Jan; Brendlin, Anna; Hempel, Jan Matthias; Weikert, Thomas; Gassenmaier, Thomas (2025). "Large language models (LLMs) in radiology exams for medical students: results of GPT-3.5, GPT-4, Perplexity and Bing". European Radiology. doi:10.1007/s00330-024-11218-0. PMID 39496293. 
  87. ↑ Sun, Shenghan; Yoon, Hye Mi; Lee, Jin Woo; Kim, Jin Mo (2025). "Large Language Models with Vision on Diagnostic Radiology Board Examination Questions". Radiology: Artificial Intelligence. doi:10.1148/ryai.240241. PMID 39632215. 
  88. ↑ Siam, Md Kamrul; Islam, M. Mahmudul; Ahmed, Shadman; Rahman, Md Mizanur (2025). "Benchmarking large language models on the United States medical licensing examination for clinical reasoning and medical licensing scenarios". Scientific Reports. doi:10.1038/s41598-025-31010-4. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-31010-4. 
  89. ↑ Fan, Yu; Ni, Jingwei; Merane, Jakob; Salimbeni, Etienne; Tian, Yang; Hermstrüwer, Yoan; Huang, Yinya; Akhtar, Mubashara; Geering, Florian; Dreyer, Oliver; Brunner, Daniel; Leippold, Markus; Sachan, Mrinmaya; Stremitzer, Alexander; Engel, Christoph; Ash, Elliott; Niklaus, Joel (2025). "LEXam: Benchmarking Legal Reasoning on 340 Law Exams". arXiv:2505.12864 [cs.CL].
  90. ↑ "A benchmark of expert-level academic questions to assess AI capabilities". Nature 649: 1139–1146. 2026. doi:10.1038/s41586-025-09962-4. 
  91. ↑ "Validating Claims About AI: A Policymaker's Guide". 2025-09-24. https://hai.stanford.edu/policy/validating-claims-about-ai-a-policymakers-guide. 
  92. ↑ "ILSVRC2017" (in en). http://image-net.org/challenges/LSVRC/2017/. 
  93. ↑ 93.0 93.1 Gray, Richard (2018). "How long will it take for your job to be automated?" (in en). BBC. http://www.bbc.com/capital/story/20170619-how-long-will-it-take-for-your-job-to-be-automated. 
  94. ↑ 94.0 94.1 "AI will be able to beat us at everything by 2060, say experts". New Scientist. 2018. https://www.newscientist.com/article/2133188-ai-will-be-able-to-beat-us-at-everything-by-2060-say-experts/. 
  95. ↑ 95.0 95.1 Grace, Katja; Salvatier, John; Dafoe, Allan; Zhang, Baobao; Evans, Owain (2017). "When Will AI Exceed Human Performance? Evidence from AI Experts". arXiv:1705.08807 [cs.AI].
  96. ↑ Silver, David; Hubert, Thomas; Schrittwieser, Julian (2017). "Mastering Chess and Shogi by Self-Play with a General Reinforcement Learning Algorithm". arXiv. 
  97. ↑ Gibney, Elizabeth (28 January 2016). "Google AI algorithm masters ancient game of Go". Nature 529 (7587): 445–446. doi:10.1038/529445a. 
  98. ↑ "The AI Index 2023 Annual Report". Stanford Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence. 2023. https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.01509. 
  99. ↑ Bowman, Samuel R. (2022). "Challenges in Measuring Progress in Natural Language Understanding". Communications of the ACM 65 (1): 60–68. doi:10.1145/3491209. 
  100. ↑ McClain, Dylan Loeb (11 September 2010). "Bent Larsen, Chess Grandmaster, Dies at 75". The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/11/world/americas/11larsen.html. 
  101. ↑ Silver, David; Hubert, Thomas; Schrittwieser, Julian (2017). "Mastering Chess and Shogi by Self-Play with a General Reinforcement Learning Algorithm". arXiv. 
  102. ↑ "The Business of Artificial Intelligence" (in en). Harvard Business Review. 18 July 2017. https://hbr.org/cover-story/2017/07/the-business-of-artificial-intelligence. 
  103. ↑ "4 Crazy Predictions About the Future of Art" (in en). Inc.com. 2017. https://www.inc.com/kevin-j-ryan/ray-kurzweil-future-of-storytelling-sxsw-2017.html. 
  104. ↑ Koch, Christof (2016). "How the Computer Beat the Go Master" (in en). Scientific American. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-computer-beat-the-go-master/. 
  105. ↑ "'I'm in shock!' How an AI beat the world's best human at Go". New Scientist. 2016. https://www.newscientist.com/article/2079871-im-in-shock-how-an-ai-beat-the-worlds-best-human-at-go/. 
  106. ↑ Moyer, Christopher (2016). "How Google's AlphaGo Beat a Go World Champion". The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/03/the-invisible-opponent/475611/. 
  107. ↑ Silver, David; Schrittwieser, Julian; Simonyan, Karen (2017). "Mastering the game of Go without human knowledge". Nature 550: 354–359. doi:10.1038/nature24270. 
  108. ↑ Johnson, George (29 July 1997). "To Test a Powerful Computer, Play an Ancient Game". The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/1997/07/29/science/to-test-a-powerful-computer-play-an-ancient-game.html?pagewanted=all. 
  109. ↑ Johnson, George (4 April 2016). "To Beat Go Champion, Google's Program Needed a Human Army". The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/05/science/google-alphago-artificial-intelligence.html. 
  110. ↑ "Cracking GO" (in en). IEEE Spectrum: Technology, Engineering, and Science News. 2007. https://spectrum.ieee.org/cracking-go. 
  111. ↑ 111.0 111.1 "The Mystery of Go, the Ancient Game That Computers Still Can't Win". WIRED. 2014. https://www.wired.com/2014/05/the-world-of-computer-go/. Retrieved 31 January 2018. 
  112. ↑ Gibney, Elizabeth (28 January 2016). "Google AI algorithm masters ancient game of Go" (in en). Nature 529 (7587): 445–446. doi:10.1038/529445a. PMID 26819021. Bibcode: 2016Natur.529..445G. 
  113. ↑ 113.0 113.1 Bostrom, Nick (2013) (in en). Superintelligence. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-967811-2. 
  114. ↑ Khatchadourian, Raffi (16 November 2015). "The Doomsday Invention". The New Yorker. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/11/23/doomsday-invention-artificial-intelligence-nick-bostrom. Retrieved 31 January 2018. 
  115. ↑ Müller, Vincent C.; Bostrom, Nick (2016). "Future progress in artificial intelligence: A survey of expert opinion". Fundamental Issues of Artificial Intelligence. Cham: Springer. pp. 555–572. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-26485-1_33. 
  116. ↑ Grace, Katja; Thomas, Stephen; Stein-Perlman, Zach; Brauner, Jan; Korzekwa, Richard C. (2025). "Thousands of AI Authors on the Future of AI". Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 82: 1–58. doi:10.1613/jair.1.19087. 
  117. ↑ "Stanford AI Experts Predict What Will Happen in 2026". 15 December 2025. https://hai.stanford.edu/news/stanford-ai-experts-predict-what-will-happen-in-2026. 
  118. ↑ Muehlhauser, Luke; Salamon, Anna (2012). "Intelligence explosion: Evidence and import". Singularity Hypotheses. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. pp. 15–42. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-32560-1_2. 
  119. ↑ Tierney, John (25 August 2008). "Vernor Vinge's View of the Future - Is Technology That Outthinks Us a Partner or a Master ?". The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/26/science/26tier.html. 
  120. ↑ "Superhumanism". Wired. 1995. https://www.wired.com/1995/10/moravec/. Retrieved 31 January 2018. 
  121. ↑ "Tech Luminaries Address Singularity" (in en). IEEE Spectrum. 2008. https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-luminaries-address-singularity. 
  122. ↑ Molloy, Mark (17 March 2017). "Expert predicts date when 'sexier and funnier' humans will merge with AI machines". The Telegraph. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2017/03/17/expert-predicts-date-sexier-funnier-humans-will-merge-ai-machines/. 
  123. ↑ "Stanford AI Experts Predict What Will Happen in 2026". 15 December 2025. https://hai.stanford.edu/news/stanford-ai-experts-predict-what-will-happen-in-2026. 

Notes

  1. ↑ IEEE Spectrum attributes to Moore both "Never" and "I don't believe this kind of thing is likely to happen, at least for a long time"



Retrieved from "https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?title=Progress_in_artificial_intelligence&oldid=4299516"
Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 | Source: https://handwiki.org/wiki/Progress_in_artificial_intelligence
24 views | Status: cached on April 21 2026 00:31:50
↧ Download this article as ZWI file
Encyclosphere.org EncycloReader is supported by the EncyclosphereKSF