Needs a zero answer.

I guess change 1-5 to 0-5??

@MartinRandall "given OpenAI claims to own an AGI by 2030" I believe this means there is no possibility of a zero answer.

@4168760 ah, I see. So if they claim agi ownership in 2030 and do not claim that in 2040 because they are extinct, then that still counts as claiming agi ownership "by 2040". Thanks for explaining.

"own an AGI" as in the company has access to the AGI's weights or their equivalent.

You should probably change this certerion. We pretty much already know that evaluation organizations will have access to the weights with strong expectations that they only use them for specific purposes, then delete them. That is not ownership.

@makoyass I understand, do you have a better definition of ownership in mind? Just exclude short term ownership for evaluation purposes? Or limit it to ownership for commercial use (is owning weights for an evaluation you are getting paid to do a commercial use)?

@4168760 I think "is able to decide when and how to apply or deploy the AGI, in a wide range of purposes, without seeking permission from another organization (such as the government)" would be a good criterion.

It's conceivable that we'll end up in a situation where all AGI research labs are highly restricted in what they can initially do with a new potential AGI, because they should be, In which case I think there's a real sense in which no one will own the AGI they built. But that would be fair enough, as a demos would have to be asleep to lay down and permit a private interest to own such a thing.

@makoyass the AGI itself may also object to being owned, depending on its values.