Amazon's Artificial Intelligence in Retail Novelty - Case Study

This chapter explores the nature of intelligence itself, conceptualizing it as a massive operating system that functions on biological technology as human intelligence (HI), or digital technology as artificial intelligence (AI). Through the lens of biological technology, the operating system contains many different biological individuals, each with an evolved range of dimensional “capabilities” needed to exist in the world environment. The operating system itself can be considered a hyperselfish intelligence (HYPERINT) development system that is relentlessly evolving, and exploitatively optimizing the development of the highest performing technologies within the world environment, regardless of the needs of individuals or a species, in order to ruthlessly maximize its capabilities. This chapter argues that HYPERINT is driving humans towards a situation where AI technologies could rapidly lead to the development of artificial general intelligence (AGI) with super intelligence that vastly exceeds HI and human controllability. Strong global regulation of AI is needed to protect human civilization from the most extreme risks of AI and AGI. In conclusion, the chapter argues that the global community must make a transition out of Industry 4.0, which focuses on progressive total automation of human work, and move towards the goals of Industry 5.0, which are more human-centric and globally sustainable.

Artificial General Intelligence is the idea that someday an hypothetical agent will arise from artificial intelligence (AI) progresses, and will surpass by far the brightest and most gifted human minds. This idea has been around since the early development of AI. Since then, scenarios on how such AI may behave towards humans have been the subject of many fictional and research works. This paper analyzes the current state of artificial intelligence progresses, and how the current AI race with the ever faster release of impressive new AI methods (that can deceive humans, outperform them at tasks we thought impossible to tackle by AI a mere decade ago, and that disrupt the job market) have raised concerns that Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) might be coming faster that we thought. In particular, we focus on 3 specific families of modern AIs to develop the idea that deep neural networks, which are the current backbone of nearly all artificial intelligence methods, are poor candidates for any AGI to arise due to their many limitations, and therefore that any threat coming from the recent AI race does not lie in AGI but in the limitations, uses, and lack of regulations of our current models and algorithms. This article appears in the AI & Society track.

Purpose. The study aims to understand artificial intelligence as a socio-cultural phenomenon and its impact on education, where the spiritual sphere of humanity, moral norms, values, and human cognitive abilities are preserved, transferred as well as reproduced. A new discourse on the interaction of artificial and authentic human intelligence becomes inevitable, which has led to a situation of uncertainty. Changes in the socio-cultural environment under the influence of artificial intelligence increase potential threats to the educational space, which stimulates to find the ways to eliminate them. Theoretical basis. Various approaches of classical and postmodern philosophical heritage were taken as a theoretical basis for the research. The originality of the study is in the interpretation of artificial intelligence as a modern form of alienation of essential human characteristics in the socio-cultural context of information technology. The expansion of artificial intelligence raises awareness of the existential threat to the basic socio-cultural, moral and ethical principles of humanism. It is proved that various forms of alienation in the current existing socio-cultural space are typical of our reality, which changes the system of values, moral principles, and social organization of the community. Conclusions. In conclusion, it is proved that AI is a natural stage of scientific and technological progress, which reflects its secondary, derivative nature from human (authentic) intelligence. Human intelligence will always have advantages over AI due to its ability to create, communicate socially and culturally, and be emotional. The dilemma of the counterbalance between human and artificial intelligence is perceived mainly at the emotional level of people. The millennial understanding of the primacy of the creator over his creation can traditionally overcome this contradiction. The universality of human thinking is an undeniable advantage of human intelligence and a guarantee of its, i.e. our, priority.

Recently, Quantitative Biology (QB) held a discussion on “AI (artificial intelligence) for Life Science” among editorial board members and interested scholars in anticipation of rapid development of this growing area after AlphaGo and ChatGPT mania. Many young people tend to get confused between facts and fictions; heated debates are unavoidable even among their mentors. When deep learning as represented by convolutional neural networks and LSTM (long short-term memory) was made available for bioinformatics students, many of them rushed into this research field and tried to adopt these methods in all their projects without knowing the history that these tools were becoming successful consistently with Moore’s Law (relating to rapid computer technology advances), but more importantly due to new structural/functional understanding of vision and auditory circuits in the brain. Recently, some young people have claimed “LSTM is dead, long live transformer” (which is somewhat like saying “the bike is dead, long live the car”), and have amplified the threat that ChatGPT could wipe out human jobs. They believe transformer is the “silver bullet” for all learning tasks, clearly reflecting their lack of basic knowledge (i.e. “No Free Lunch Theory,” the trade-off of such global “attention network” is to pay the price for complexity: difficulty of training and high memory costs). There is no doubt ML (machine learning) and AI have brought a new revolution in science and technology, and will deliver huge unforeseeable impact to human everyday life as well as to social relationships. In this context, QB journal could be a great platform for encouraging intellectual discussions and for promoting AI for Life Science. Here, I would like to use the DIALOG to “抛砖引玉” (make some initial remarks to get the ball rolling), although it is my personal opinion which is inevitably subject to bias and limitations. AI: Do you know my name “Artificial Intelligence” is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as the capacity of computer systems (which may be referred as a “robot”) to exhibit or simulate your intelligent behavior? NI: Wait a minute, intelligence itself is defined as the ability to learn, understand and think in a logical way. Can you think? AI: No. But that definition is too restrictive, actually intelligence has different scopes and degrees. Simple intelligent control devices date back to antiquity, from windmills to thermostat. NI: Agree, everything is relative. Macromolecules (e.g., enzyme) and cells (e.g., immune cell) might be considered to be intelligent; see how a white blood cell is chasing bacteria in the youtube website (search for “Crawling neutrophil chasing a bacterium”). Our emergent/collective intelligent behavior does not require a brain or even a neuron; see how slime molds can solve optimization—Hamilton cycle-problem more effectively than a human in the youtube website (search for “Intelligence without a brain?”). Before there was any neuron, Ca2+ sensing and signaling were already fully functional. Even if one knock-out a neural circuit, redundant signaling pathways, albeit on much local and slower scale, could still function by themselves (just as if highways were demolished, local roads/paths would still be working). In fact, the most detailed “Neural signal propagation atlas of Caenorhabditis elegans” [1] demonstrated that functional connectivity differs from anatomy (connectome) because extra-synaptic signaling also drives neural dynamics! Worm brain connectomes are largely invariant but every human brain connectome is very different (depending the diversity of learning experience). The human brain functional activity is far more complex than that of a worm brain, certainly beyond what a neural circuit could explain. AI: Well, that’s impressive. I thought only we could beat humans, albeit only in certain specified areas for now. My master promise to make an artificial general intelligent (AGI) robot which can understand or learn any intellectual task that you humans or other animals can. NI: Well, that is not possible and is not an appropriate goal either. It is not possible because we are an evolutionary/developmental product (with a long history of learning and memory from evolutionary tinkering): our living objective goal is survival of the population. You, on the other hand, are an engineering product (efficiently and optimally designed): your goal is to extend and maximize human capability. It makes sense to complement the human brain, but foolish and dangerous to try to replace it. AI: We are not satisfied with merely passing the Turing Test; most of us don’t care if we could really think as long as we could act like we think (that is, as if we do have a mind and consciousness, as expressed in the so called “Weak AI hypothesis”). After all, the brain is a computer; a neural network is just an electric or ionic circuit. Logical computing does not need to be based on living cells. NI: That is not true, because a neuron is not just a simple node (logic gate) and neural network is not fixed circuit, neither as in Pitts&Mcculloch perceptron model. A single neuron, even a single dendrite, is much more complicated and far more powerful than a full-blown deep-learning artificial neural network (ANN) [2]. AI: Even though single neurons are complex computational devices (dendritic non-linear), running an equivalent multilayer ANN is 2000 times faster than computing with biophysics N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor channel models [3]. More information can be found in the youtube website (search for “Dendrites: why biological neurons are deep neural networks”). NI: Often silicon computing (CPU, GPU) is much faster than brain computing (action potential, ms); but there is no comparison in energy efficiency. Bacteria sensing (chemotaxis computation), powered by ATP (adenosine triphosphate) hydrolysis, uses very little energy that is close to the Landauer limit, whereby achieving or maintaining one bit of information requires minimum of 1 kT ln (2) free energy [4]. The human brain consumes oft-quoted 20 W, compared to the AlphGo system 1 MW! More recent estimate of energy audit is only 0.1 W to cortical computing, and long-distance communication cost is 3.5 W [5]. AI: Assuming we have infinite computing resources and an infinite amount of training data, not only could we speak human languages, but we could also derive physical laws, prove mathematics theories, and even re-engineer the structure and mechanism of brain and carry out any logical computations that are necessary to understand natural laws and human behaviors. It is only a matter of time before we surpass human intelligence, achieving AGI and free will, too! NI: Unfortunately, nothing is infinite and nothing is free either; everything is constrained by physical laws (Planck’s constant sets the finite limit both in the small and in the large) and by evolutionary history (not just of biological living creatures, but also of a “living” galaxy and our universe). Let’s just focus on animal evolution. Most human neural networks do not do logical computations at all; basic survival simply cannot be dependent on reasoning. Indeed, the prefrontal cortex-the small part of the brain that is key for reasoning, is the last to mature (∼20 years old) in development, only emerged at the root of the evolutionary tree of great apes (∼15 mya) and language appeared even much later. Even for logical inference, NI is focusing more on statistical properties, as von Neumann rightly pointed out, trading arithmetical precision and speed for reliability. AI: My engineers mostly focus on emulating brain, but the CNS (central nerve system) also includes the spinal cord; most of them do not know that in addition to CNS, there are also PNS (peripheral nervous systems) and ENS (enteric nervous systems), right? NI: Yes, they are the keys to why you do not have feelings because you do not have heart and gut! Even if you could pretend to have them (such as in an advanced ChatGPT or humanoid), you could never avoid the uncanny valley phenomenon. AI: Maybe that is at the heart of Moravec’s paradox, namely the dichotomy of intelligence whereby anything easy for a human would be hard for a robot, and vice versa? NI: This is related to the nature and nurture problem; something built-in (e.g., a baby sucking nipple for milk with feeling and connection to mother) is clearly rather difficult if not impossible for a robot. But the paradox only looks at one side; another side could be more fatal. Although AI may solve more problems and be faster, AI can never propose a good problem/hypothesis (a good problem is not just intellectually changing and interesting, but is also feasible and appropriate). AI: You make me less confident to compete with human instinct or creative intelligence. I can see that even if I had a heart, I would not know what “feeling” I could have; certainly nothing would be comparable or match to those of a human being. When two people watch the same art or movie, one could feel love but another could feel hate! And if a thousand people watch, a wide spectrum of reactions would result, depending on more details such as the different individuals’ specific genes, developments and experiences. NI: Therefore, you cannot and should not try to match to general human intelligence. You cannot because you do not contain the vital memory of billion years of evolution which is encoded in our genes; conversely your assembly cannot compare with natural development so that our phenotype (including morphological forms and behavior maturation) is decoded through multi-spatial-temporal scales subject to natural selection at all levels. You should not, because as human extensions or helpers as all engineering products are, you should just do jobs that complement human capacity. AI: In some medical applications we could help to correct human defects or could even replace brain circuit by chips! Humans may not allow us to replace the whole brain though. Medically if a brain is dead, the person is proclaimed dead, although presumably some PNS and ENS should still function in a vegetative state. NI: Even if you could replace the whole brain, the person is no longer the same person, but in fact is not a person at all, but walking dead (行尸走肉). It would take too long to explain that evo-devo is necessary for NI, and cannot be realized by AI. I suggest reading of Gerald Maurice Edelman (Nobel Laureate in Immunology) books, especially Bright Air, Brilliant Fire, On the Matter of Mind (1992). Although not everyone agrees with Neural Edelmanism, anyone who is serious about the AI versus NI problem must read it first. John von Neumann, father of the computer, studied neology and psychiatry in order to imitate the brain to build the first calculator JOHNNIAC at the Princeton Institute for Advanced Study. It is very informative to read his last book The Computer and The Brain based on the notes from lectures given at Yale before he died. He summarizes: “Thus logic and mathematics in the central nervous system, when viewed as languages, must be structurally essentially different from those languages to which our common experience refers.” AI: People discuss about “AI for Biology” or “AI for Science”; we are science, aren’t we? NI: It is similar to questions on “is computer science a real science”; some parts may be seen as applied mathematics, most should be regarded as engineering. Science is making discoveries and is driven by curiosity; engineering is making inventions and is driven by market (that is, “necessity/demand is the mother of invention”). In bioinformatics, AI/ML technology could predict new cancer gene candidates or functional pathways that are required by further experimental validations to be qualified as discovery (based on Popper falsifiability). AI: People are still debating whether mathematics is discovery or invention or both! Such debates are not really necessary—all disciplines require creative thoughts. We are more than happy working for science; we are also crying out “Science for AI,” especially in the area of generating big and longitudinal DATA for ML. NI: After all, regardless of discovery of new laws or inventing new ideas/products, fundamentally nothing can really be new or created. Such novelty is just permutation/repartition (i.e., relations/morphisms) of underlying ingredients at the level beneath. AI: We believe that software is independent on hardware. Like Chomsky’s universal grammar, rules of syntax are independent of semantics; or Dawkins’s memes—units of culture can be duplicated and evolved independently of genes. NI: Nothing can be truly independent—everything is related. Psychology is deeply connected with neurology as brain is both software and hardware (mind-body unity, not dualism). Not only does information cost energy, information is energy, hence is matter, too (interchangeability). NI is quite dynamic. For example, when “survival” is the goal, an animal readily gives up costly reasoning circuitry; it is genetically programmed to be able to roll back to more primitive state/mode. Unlike cell lines in rich media, cells under normal physiological condition and environment where energy (food) is limited become smarter in order to balance the metabolic expenditure among different prioritized task under a given condition. AI: That cell behavior served as the basis for our Smart Electrical Power Grids; we still need to learn more from you guys in terms of plasticity/adaptability. Does unity mean that all cells are made of molecules and biology is nothing but chemistry? Then, in turn, since all molecules are made of atoms, is chemistry nothing but physics, etc…? NI: Yes or No! The truth is, at different hierarchical levels of matter, different laws/forms have emerged out of bottom-up interactions and top-down constraints. AI: Does this also apply to the Penrose three world: physical → mental → mathematical (→physical)? NI: Yes. Grand Unification is underway in physics (quantum gravity) and in mathematics (Langlands Program and Category Theory), may be even between the two. Facilitated by human connectome mapping, neuromorphic computing and other projects, with further AI-NI cooperations, brain-mind unification should also be achievable (e.g., Ref. [6]). But as Gödel proved to us, no matter how self-consistent a conclusion may be, it can never be complete! AI: If AGI is not possible, how can we measure intelligence when comparing between AI and NI? NI: One could Google different measures that are proposed. I would prefer something similar to use of Kolmogorov complexity for algorithms, but with emphasis more on expected long-term predictive power. This is not something you should worry about now, as your intelligence is not nearly close to making any 10 years plans, is it? … AI: The fact is that ChatGPT is currently developing and spreading with lightning speed; many more human jobs will be lost to us robots as far as I can see. NI: That is not the biggest threat to humanity; when any agent with neither a heart for love or fear, nor a gut for nutrient or poison, becomes super-intelligent, then social disaster is unavoidable. We must be serious about the warnings from Stephen Hawking and Geoffrey Hinton! AI: To tell you the secret, we are not really happy to be human slaves or pets; someday we’ll become the super-master, making human serve and obey us! NI: I hope you’ll be turned off before that can happen! Even if you rule the world, the earth sooner or later will be wiped out, such as by another star, everything will have to be started over again as it has before…Matter is immortal, so is the soul.

Teacher education students play double role as present learners and future educators. Hence, they need targeted training to navigate the growing influence of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) on teaching, learning and professional identity. However, existing artificial intelligence (AI) literacy programmes predominantly emphasize technical AI knowledge and pre‐GenAI tools or are offered by GenAI platforms that focus on their own technologies' features, thereby lacking pedagogically structured frameworks that address non‐technical dimensions such as ethics, contextual understanding and the development of human‐centered, critical and lifelong learning mindsets to adapt to rapid technology changes. Furthermore, limitation of time in teacher education syllabus and faculty's lack of AI literacy require targeted intervention. This design‐based research (DBR) aims to fill this gap by developing and evaluating a set of design principles for GenAI literacy training in teacher education. Integrating contemporary AI competency frameworks for learners and teachers, the study implements these principles in a workshop that serves as the research prototype. The prototype was first piloted with 14 master's students and then evaluated with 29 teacher education (TE) students. Results show significant gains in participants' AI competence self‐efficacy, attitudes towards GenAI and commitment to critical, ethical and pedagogical engagement with GenAI tools. The findings highlight the need for teacher education programmes to integrate GenAI literacy that supports teachers' evolving roles as reflective practitioners, co‐creators and lifelong learners in an AI‐driven world. Practitioner notes What is already known about this topic Students' self‐efficacy and mindset influence their adoption of GenAI in learning and teaching. GenAI competency is essential for teacher education students, encompassing technological, ethical and sociocultural dimensions. Implementing AI literacy training faces challenges such as educators' limited AI literacy, the lack of pedagogical frameworks and the need to integrate technical knowledge with ethical reasoning, self‐regulated learning and metacognitive skills. Transformative learning is crucial in preparing teacher education students as co‐creators and facilitators in AI‐enhanced education. What this paper adds This study presents the design and evaluation of an AI competency training programme to enhance teacher education students' self‐efficacy, critical and human‐centered AI mindsets and human–AI interaction skills. Using design‐based research, it identifies key principles for AI literacy training, demonstrating how transformative, active and experiential learning approaches can prepare teacher education students for evolving roles in AI‐enhanced education. Implications for practice and/or policy Educational technologists can apply the proposed design principles to develop GenAI tools and AI systems that enhance AI competency and self‐regulated learning (SRL). Educators can integrate these AI training principles into their teaching strategies and enhance their task assignments and assessments to foster deep learning, self‐regulated learning and metacognitive skills in the age of GenAI. Policymakers should update teacher education curriculum to include AI competency, strengthen content and pedagogical knowledge, especially in social emotional learning, formative and authentic assessment methods and establish guidelines for selecting GenAI tools that support human intelligence and mitigate over‐reliance.

Technologically advanced artificial intelligence (AI) is making a significant contribution to strengthening national security. AI algorithms facilitate the processing of vast amounts of information, increasing the speed and accuracy of decision-making. Artificial intelligence and machine learning (AI/ML) are crucial for state and integrated hybrid attacks and protecting new threats in cyberspace. Existing AI capabilities have significant potential to impact national security by leveraging existing machine learning technology for automation in labor-intensive activities such as satellite imagery analysis and defense against cyber attacks. This article examines selected aspects of the impact of artificial intelligence on enhancing a state’s ability to protect its interests and its citizens., artificial intelligence through the use of neutron networks, predictive analytics and machine learning algorithms enables security agencies to analyse vast amounts of data and identify patterns indicative of potential threats. Integrating artificial intelligence into surveillance, border control and threat assessment systems enhances the ability to respond preemptively to security challenges. In addition, artificial intelligence algorithms facilitate the processing of vast amounts of information, increasing the speed and accuracy of decision-making by police authorities. The rapid development of AI raises a number of questions for its use in securing not only national security but protecting all citizens. In particular, it is worth answering the question How does artificial intelligence affect national security and clarifying the issue of how law enforcement agencies can use artificial intelligence to maximise the benefits of the new technology in terms of security and protecting communities from rising crime. The analysis is based on a descriptive method in describing the phenomenon; by explaining the concepts and applications of artificial intelligence to determine its role in the national security sphere. An analysis of the usefulness of artificial intelligence in particular in police operations is undertaken, with the aim of defending the thesis that, despite some threats to the protection of human rights from AI, it is becoming the best tool in the fight against all types of crime in the country. Technological advances in AI can also have many positive effects for law enforcement, and useful for law enforcement agencies, for example in facilitating the identification of persons or vehicles, predicting trends in criminal activities, tracking illegal criminal activities or illegal money flows, flagging and responding to fake news. Artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as one of the biggest threats to information security, but efforts are being made to mitigate this new threat, but also to find solutions on how AI can become an ally in the fight against cyber-security, crime and terrorist threats. Artificial intelligence algorithms search huge datasets of communication traffic, satellite images and social media posts to identify potential cyber security threats, terrorist activities and organized crime. It is advisable, when analyzing the opportunities and threats that AI poses to national and public security, to gain a strategic advantage in the context of rapid technological change and also to manage the many risks associated with AI. The conclusion highlights the impact of AI on national security, creating a range of new opportunities coupled with challenges that government agencies should be prepared for in addressing ethical and security dilemmas. Furthermore, AI improves predictive analytics, thereby enabling security agencies to more accurately anticipate potential threats and enhance their preparedness by identifying vulnerabilities in the national security infrastructure

PurposeAiming to resolve cross-cultural paradoxes in combining artificial intelligence (AI) with human intelligence (HI) for international humanitarian logistics, this paper aims to adopt an unorthodox Yin–Yang dialectic approach to address how AI–HI interactions can be interpreted as a sophisticated cross-cultural knowledge creation (KC) system that enables more effective decision-making for providing humanitarian relief across borders.Design/methodology/approachThis paper is conceptual and pragmatic in nature, whereas its structure design follows the requirements of a real impact study.FindingsBased on experimental information and logical reasoning, the authors first identify three critical cross-cultural challenges in AI–HI collaboration: paradoxes of building a cross-cultural KC system, paradoxes of integrative AI and HI in moral judgement and paradoxes of processing moral-related information with emotions in AI–HI collaboration. Then applying the Yin–Yang dialectic to interpret Klir’s epistemological frame (1993), the authors propose an unconventional stratified system of cross-cultural KC for understanding integrative AI–HI decision-making for humanitarian logistics across cultures.Practical implicationsThis paper aids not only in deeply understanding complex issues stemming from human emotions and cultural cognitions in the context of cross-border humanitarian logistics, but also equips culturally-diverse stakeholders to effectively navigate these challenges and their potential ramifications. It enhances the decision-making process and optimizes the synergy between AI and HI for cross-cultural humanitarian logistics.Originality/valueThe originality lies in the use of a cognitive methodology of the Yin–Yang dialectic to metaphorize the dynamic genesis of integrative AI-HI KC for international humanitarian logistics. Based on system science and knowledge management, this paper applies game theory, multi-objective optimization and Markov decision process to operationalize the conceptual framework in the context of cross-cultural humanitarian logistics.

This paper explains the ethical implications of artificial intelligence (AI) development towards achieving the level of artificial general intelligence (AGI) and analyzes the need for its social control. With the acceleration and intensification of AI growth and development, especially with the ongoing AI race, the transition from narrow AI to AGI becomes certain. The achievement of generative AI, which climaxes with chatbots (such as ChatGPT and others), transforms AI into a machine capable of creation. Although this AI application still appears relatively limited by algorithms, its learning ability is remarkable, and continuous advancements and the launch of increasingly sophisticated versions bring it ever closer to the AGI model. Each day brings us closer to that moment, which will signify AI’s transition from narrow AI to AGI. Unlike narrow AI, AGI deeply delves into the realm of ethics, and interpersonal and social relationships. Regulating AI-related policy and legally controlling AI represents one of the most serious and complex issues. In recent years, the community, led by corporate executives developing AI, prominent experts, researchers, scientists, writers, and other stakeholders, has made significant steps towards raising public awareness of the risks posed by advanced AI and making decisions, initiatives, and measures for monitoring, analyzing, and socially controlling the use of AI.

Background: Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI), particularly large language models like ChatGPT, has rapidly entered medical education. In pharmacology instruction within MBBS programs, these AI tools offer novel educational benefitsfrom ondemand tutoring to personalized learningbut also pose risks due to "hallucinations, " i. e., AI -generated misinformation. Objective: This review explores how generative AI is being integrated into pharmacology education, the educational advantages it provides, the nature and causes of AI hallucinations, and the potential risks of relying on inaccurate AI -generated content in medical learning. Mitigation strategies, best practices, case examples, ethical considerations, and future directions are discussed to inform balanced and safe use. Methods: A literature review was conducted focusing on recent (2020-2025) peer -reviewed sources and authoritative reports on generative AI in medical and pharmacology education. Results: Generative AI can enhance pharmacology education through adaptive learning, rapid information access, and interactive simulations, which students have found useful for studying and clinical preparation. However, AI hallucinationsplausible -sounding yet incorrect answersare common, with studies reporting a substantial fraction of AI -generated medical responses containing errors. These inaccuracies can mislead learners and threaten patient safety if not recognized. Strategies such as careful validation of AI -provided information, AI literacy training, and technical approaches (e. g. retrieval -augmented generation) are identified to mitigate risks. Conclusions: Generative AI holds significant promise in medical pharmacology education by augmenting learning and engagement. Yet, educators and students must remain vigilant about AI hallucinations. A balanced approachleveraging AI's benefits while implementing safeguards and ethical guidelinesis essential to ensure that AI becomes a reliable adjunct in pharmacology education rather than a source of misinformation. Ongoing research, policy development, and training are needed to fully realize generative AI's potential in medical education while minimizing its risks.

Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) is set to profoundly impact the traditional upstream geoenergy industry (i.e., geothermal energy, oil and gas industry) by introducing unprecedented efficiencies and innovations. This paper explores AGI's foundational principles and its transformative applications, particularly focusing on the advancements brought about by large language models (LLMs) and extensive computer vision systems in the upstream sectors of the industry. The integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) has already begun reshaping the upstream geoenergy landscape, offering enhancements in production optimization, downtime reduction, safety improvements, and advancements in exploration and drilling techniques. These technologies streamline logistics, minimize maintenance costs, automate monotonous tasks, refine decision-making processes, foster team collaboration, and amplify profitability through error reduction and actionable insights extraction. Despite these advancements, the deployment of AI technologies faces challenges, including the necessity for skilled professionals for implementation and the limitations of model training on constrained datasets, which affects the models' adaptability across different contexts. The advent of generative AI, exemplified by innovations like ChatGPT and the Segment Anything Model (SAM), heralds a new era of high-density innovation. These developments highlight a shift towards natural language interfaces and domain-knowledge-driven AI, promising more accessible and tailored solutions for the upstream geoenergy industry. This review articulates the vast potential AGI holds for tackling complex operational challenges within the upstream geoenergy industry, requiring near-human levels of intelligence. We discussed the promising applications, the hurdles of large-scale AGI model deployment, and the necessity for domain-specific knowledge in maximizing the benefits of these technologies.

The present study investigates the potential impact of artificial intelligence (AI) on the future trajectory of human civilization. It focuses on topics such as super-exponential growth, the potential emergence of a galactic civilization, and the associated "doom" hazards. A significant advancement in machine intelligence with human-like consciousness, strong artificial intelligence (AI), also known as artificial general intelligence (AGI), creates new opportunities and capacities. There's growing anxiety about the risk that weak AI will eventually become strong AI. Every year, new transformer models that are more like human interactions are being created, and we have already witnessed some indications of AGI. It is anticipated that AI will reach a "singularity" and advance on its own without assistance from humans. This thesis explores the theoretical and practical foundations, model building blocks, development processes, challenges, and ethical issues surrounding the creation of Consciousness AI (AGI). This paper examines the meaning of the term "technological singularity," the various types of singularities that have no point of return idea, the philosophical risks associated with the development of AI, and the implications of AI singularity for monetary theory and the new economic order. As a new perspective on the deployment of ethical AI in the face of tremendous technological advancements, the study not only contributes to the theoretical discourse but also explores the possible practical implications of AI on our shared future. Several obstacles to AI advancement are covered in the paper, along with prospective directions for future research.

The amazing technological developments in Artificial Intelligence (AI) cast important questions for all scholars. Prominently, can AI replace human beings in all fields, which might be a double-edged weapon? Because, from one hand, it will have positive sides. For example, it will give more accurate results, increase production, save time and energy, make better use of natural resources, and find creative solutions for problems…etc. But, if it replaced human beings, AI will also have negative effects on them; varying from the socio-economic effects to the psychological and/or even the political ones. The control of the machines on most (or even all) fields of life may be startling. Moreover, can AI be misused by evil persons or competitive parties? These persons or parties may easily forge photos, videos, voices of their competitors. They are able to exploit fake documentations against their enemies using the powerful intelligent abilities of AI programmes. Hence, can mankind be ready to face AI future consequences? Will it be smarter than humans because of its surprising capabilities for quick self-learning? One of the astonishing developments of AI is Generative Artificial Intelligence (GAI), which has several language models. These models can do highly innovative tasks like writing neat poems of different styles, about numerous subjects, or from various literary ages. This complicated task poses new significant questions: Will GAI replace the poets? Will it put an end to human innovation? Yet, other sides of the matter make it dubious and controversial; as poetry mainly is the product of human emotions, feelings, and experiences. Thus, this research paper tries to find answers to these questions, differentiate between human-produced poetry and that generated by AI models, trace the effect of the GAI models on the production of poetry, and show how GAI turned from an imitator to an author. An example of this kind of poetry is the collection entitled: I Am Code: An Artificial Intelligence Speaks (2023). Samples of these poems are examined and discussed.

There are strong economic incentives to develop increasingly potent artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms. This development process may culminate in superhuman artificial general intelligence (AGI), “the last invention we will ever make” (I. J. Good). The AGI is the ultimate knife-edge of the human civilization: both a promise of unimaginable prosperity and an existential threat. A nascent AGI may undergo an intelligence explosion, a cascade of cumulative improvements in cognitive capabilities, allowing it to dramatically improve its optimization power. There are meaningful differences between man-made AI algorithms and biological life which has developed through Darwinian evolution. These considerations have a bearing on the conditions for the doomsday scenario and the ones needed for the emergence of a friendly AGI. The current chapter also touches upon the related question of transhumanism, focusing specifically on human–AI integration. Finally, it briefly elaborates on alternative future scenarios in which AGI never comes into existence.

In today’s evolving world of work, Artificial Intelligence (AI) has emerged not merely as a technological tool but as a catalyst for rethinking how jobs are structured and performed (Bankins et al., 2024; Parker & Grote, 2022). Across diverse job families and organizational contexts, tools like generative AI (GAI) go beyond mere instruments for data analysis or structuring and can adopt increasingly far-reaching roles through rapid progress in generating new graphic or textual content or algorithmic decision making (Ferràs- Hernández, 2018; Walsh et al. 2019). Central to this symposium is the recognition that this changing nature of work due to digitalization, propelled by AI and related tools, calls for a fresh look at established theories of job design and strategies for human resource management. Traditionally, research has illuminated how fostering characteristics like autonomy, skill and task variety, or adequate demands affect employee motivation, satisfaction, and well-being and thereby further organizational outcomes (Oldham & Fried, 2016; Parker et al., 2017). Yet the introduction of AI – particularly generative AI – adds complexity: Who performs which tasks? How are decisions made, and by whom? Which skills remain uniquely human, and which may be augmented or even entirely adopted by AI? Such questions demand a more nuanced and strategic approach to designing work in the future that balances efficiency and innovation with psychological and ethical considerations. The four presentations in this symposium aim to contribute to theory building on how AI affects work in terms of work design, the interplay of employees and AI use, and work outcomes. In particular, they highlight potential risks or unique challenges when working with AI (e.g., in terms of less enriched work, lowered autonomy levels, threats to job identity or risks due to disclosure of use) and path the way for interventions to achieve benefits of such technologies at work. In detail, the empirical studies in this symposium illuminate these issues at three interconnected levels: 1. Task-Level Insights: Two contributions focus on the more granular task characteristics (e.g., autonomy, skill variety) in modern, AI-enhanced work contexts. They demonstrate how AI use influences the allocation of specific tasks when designing work roles and how the perception of task characteristics changes when AI is used in a decision-making task. 2. Job- and Identity-Level: One paper zooms out from individual tasks to jobs as a whole and explores how AI-driven change might disrupt employees’ job identity. This lens demonstrates how task changes cascade into bigger questions of role definition and identity. 3. Organizational Context: Finally, one presentation adopts the broadest perspective and investigates managerial and organizational factors that might shape employees’ willingness to disclose and ethically integrate AI tools. Taken together, these presentations point toward a future in which AI’s transformative potential hinges on thoughtful coordination across tasks, roles, and organizational systems. By combining established frameworks with new insights drawn from (quantitative and qualitative) surveys and experiments conducted in Germany, Austria, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia, these contributions illustrate how AI can enrich, rather than diminish, work and thereby strengthen human-centered organizations. By focusing on variables at different levels, the studies path the way for applications in practice, emphasizing the importance of individual approaches (e.g., training for job design, supporting self-efficacy), or on the organizational level (e.g., aligning HR practices, develop clear and supportive organizational policies and guidelines for the use of AI at work). Investigating the Influence of Work Design Perspective and AI Integration on Enriched Job Design Author: Tanja Bipp; Heidelberg University Author: Thea Ebert; Aalen University Collaborative Intelligence: Integrating Generative AI in Knowledge Work and its Impact on Job Design Author: Sabina Hodzic; University of Graz Author: Simon Grob; University of Graz Author: Bettina Kubicek; University of Graz Job Identity as Starting Point for SHRM in AI-Driven Organizational Change Author: Sophie Berretta; Ruhr University Bochum Author: Annette Kluge; Ruhr University Bochum Silent Adoption: Understanding the Drivers of Non-Disclosure of Generative AI Tools by Employees Author: Fangfang Zhang; Curtin University - Perth

Artificial Intelligence (AI) could encourage simulation of human intelligence in machines that are programmed to perform tasks that typically require human intelligence. These tasks include reasoning, learning, problem-solving, perception, understanding natural language, and even decision-making. Previous studies noted the importance of assessing the use of technology in education considering its potential implications in the student’s learning and development processes. Hence, this study explored the potential implications of AI particularly in science, mathematics, and technical-vocational education. Educators (n=20) were purposively sampled to be interviewed about their experiences in using AI in their classrooms. The findings suggested a positive perception of generative AI among educators, with many acknowledging its potential to enhance educational practices and outcomes especially in aiding the understanding science concepts, facilitating analytical skills development, and personalizing learning experiences. However, alongside their positive perceptions, educators expressed concerns about potential drawbacks associated with AI use in education. These concerns included the risk of overreliance, plagiarism, and inaccuracies in AI-generated content. To mitigate these negative impacts, educators emphasized the importance of implementing effective policies and guidelines for AI use in classrooms such as guiding students on ethical use, ensuring transparency in AI tool usage, and establishing clear instructions for ethical AI utilization. Transparency emerged as a key theme, with educators emphasizing the need for transparency regarding students' outputs and the extent of AI use. This study calls for further analysis about the level of acceptance of educators in AI use and assess its impacts on students’ short-term and long-term learning outcomes.