[s1dechnl]

They [each individual development group] has power over their own funded development and work.

Anyone working on this problem sincerely values AI safety and its a component of developing and securing the foundations of AGI. An out of control, unpredictable and sloppy system is not intelligent or desired. Such a system would not be considered AGI or an achievement. So, it is natural for any developer to identify issues and bring them under control early in development.

Suggestions that a consortium not centered or understanding of the fundamental development occurring at another entity should have control/influence could possibly serve as the very danger that safety groups claim they are trying to avoid. On this matter, I suggest people stick to the experts/developers/scientist/engineers who've developed such a system and produce a comfortable/non-forceful environment for them to express and detail their safety mechanism.

This is not a conversation for technologist, youtube celebrities, futurist, business types talking up their books, etc. This is a conversation that should ultimately centered on the creators of the technology an the advancing thinking and framing that allowed them to birth the technology. No one with such a mind is aiming for unsafe forms of this technology. It is disingenuous to frame them as such so as to necessitate some external paid body's outside work.

[dsacco]

Could you summarize your point more concisely? As written this seems to be a stream of disconnected thoughts that are basically entirely unsubstantiated.

[s1dechnl]

You stated it yourself in post : > there is absolutely no indication whatsoever that OpenAI would credibly reach this (vague, underspecified) goal before any of the other serious contenders. > Nor would competitors have any requirement to include OpenAI if and when they were getting close.

In summary : > No one of the intelligence capable of producing AGI is going to publish the full details > People who claim they would have to engage in vague mental gymnastics and mission statements to try to convince people of the illogical. > Those who develop AGI will of course address the safety problem internally to ensure their product is a success > They wont be include outside competitors/consortiums who will of course exploit and use the intellectual property they are exposed to for their competitive advantage

The software industry is the software industry. Intellectual property is paramount. Nothing has changed. Google isn't giving 100% access to their source code or data sets. Microsoft isn't open sourcing all of their code.. etc etc. Suggesting that a new comer should for 'safety' reasons is a manipulative 'think of the kids' FUD argument.

[dsacco]

> No one of the intelligence capable of producing AGI is going to publish the full details

This is what I'm talking about when I say "unsubstantiated." Do you recognize that this claim isn't true a priori?

[s1dechnl]

You're welcome to contact me when it occurs. I think I defined who I was in an earlier comment against the advice of someone who claimed it might impact my ability to get capital in the future.