> 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. This is the clear reality. So why do certain human beings pretend otherwise? Why does this pretentious game garner the most funding?Why do human beings spend so much time manipulating and hyping things into over-stated valuations when it ultimately results in wasted resources, time, and potential for the collective?

In any event, speaking freely and openly in this manner helps put my at ease knowing I at least got the information in its raw form out in the open. Whether or not you believe my framing, arguments, commentary is up to you. Whether or not anyone inquires is up to them. The information was put out there and that clears my conscience in a manner about the times ahead.

Competitive pressure, and the "if we don't, someone else will" effect (or Moloch, if you like). AGI- particularly recursively self-improving AGI- is the ultimate first-mover advantage: the first company or country to have AGI will very likely be able to leverage that into keeping anyone else from getting it (if it doesn't, y'know, kill us). This strongly encourages treating all concerns other than "get there first" as secondary.

> Automobile manufacturers and their tier 1 suppliers are the world leaders in automobile safety, after all.

Not by choice they aren't. They are forced to be the way they are by government regulations, which they always bitterly opposed at the time of creation. In fact, capitalism has such a reliable record of "not giving a shit about safety until they are forced to" that I'm perplexed you think AGI would be any different.

They may have to focus on safety and aligning it to the companies values (else test/weak versions are likely to destroy/negatively impact the company or at least be useless). Which is at least something.

Only hyperrational/intelligent value unaligned intelligent systems would avoid this pressure. I don't see the development going that way.

It would still be sub optimal though.

> Not by choice they aren't.

This is why I was glad to see this in TFA:

>>> ...while increasing the importance of sharing safety, policy, and standards research."

Even for Weak AI, history tells us that these factors -- policy and industry collaboration -- tend to be significant ingredients in successful safety reforms.

How? This doesn't seem axiomatic.

I don't, that's why I said "very unclear" (to me). If something is "clear" to you about AGI, then it seems like it's you who makes that assumption.

So you are claiming that by making this statement you are not assuming that it is impossible to control an AGI?

This is similar to having a very advanced bioengineering technology, where you could instantly change anything about your body. Would you make yourself smarter? Sure. Would you change who you are (e.g. turned off your instincts/desires)? Not so sure.