[pizzly]

What about the 'openness' of AI development. When I say 'openness' of AI I mean in research papers, spying, former employees, etc. Wouldn't that mean that after a few months to years after AGI is discovered that the other country would also discover AGI due to benefiting from the obtaining the knowledge from the other side? Similar to how the Soviets did their first nuclear test less than 5 years after US did theirs due to a large part in spying. The point here is wouldn't the country that spends less in AI development actually have an advantage over the country that does as they will obtain that knowledge quickly for less money? Also the time of discovery of AGI may be less important than the country that first implements the benefit of AGI.

[CuriouslyC]

This is actually an interesting question! If you look at OpenAI's change in behavior, I think that's going to be the pattern for venture backed AI: piggyback on open science, then burn a bunch of capital on closed tech to gain a temporary advantage, and hope to parlay that into something bigger.

I believe China's open source focus is in part a play for legitimacy, and part a way to devalue our closed AI efforts. They want to be the dominant power not just by force but by mandate. They're also uniquely well positioned to take full advantage of AI proliferation as I mentioned, so in this case a rising tide raises some boats more than others.

[hattmall]

Is there even a clear definition of AGI? How will one side or the other side know who is the "winner".

[CuriouslyC]

The AI labs have settled on a definition of AGI: "AI that can do the vast majority of economically valuable work at or above the level of humans."

They don't heavily advertise this definition because investors expect AGI to mean the computer from Her, and it's not gonna be that. They want to be able to tell investors without lying that they're on target for AGI in 3 years, and they're riding on pre-existing expectations.