MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Artificial Intelligence and Superintelligence: The New Frontiers of Human Capability

2025· article· W4417132851 on OpenAlexaff
Ahmed Talaat Mersal

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEthics and Social Impacts of AI
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutomationApplications of artificial intelligenceArtificial lifeExpert systemKey (lock)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Artificial intelligence (AI) has progressed from rule-based automation to increasingly autonomous, general-purpose systems capable of perception, reasoning, and large-scale decision-making. This rapid evolution has renewed scientific interest in the theoretical and practical conditions under which artificial systems may approach or surpass human-level cognition. This paper presents a comprehensive analytical framework that traces the historical milestones of AI, examines the conceptual boundaries between human intelligence, artificial general intelligence (AGI), and artificial superintelligence (ASI), and evaluates the technical, ethical, and existential challenges associated with highly capable AI systems. By synthesizing developments in machine learning, deep neural architectures, cognitive modeling, and alignment research, the study identifies key trajectories that may lead to future superintelligent systems and highlights the critical transition points that shape this progression. Furthermore, the paper provides a structured assessment of risks across developmental stages-from narrow AI to mature ASI-addressing issues such as value misalignment, goal divergence, capability scaling, and long-term societal impact. The proposed analysis offers a unified perspective on the future of intelligent systems and outlines the governance considerations required to ensure that advanced AI technologies evolve safely, predictably, and in alignment with human values.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.032
Scholarly communication0.0080.015
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.072
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.321 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEthics and Social Impacts of AI→French-language works237,207→