Claim · 2023-11 · publication · Stated in source · Supported

Gans (2023) attributes the existential-risk concerns of OpenAI's funders, which it says shaped OpenAI's governance structure, to their having been outlined by Bostrom (2014), and calls those concerns controversial.

One recorded claim. The claim panel gives its qualification, the source passages with their place in each source, and how it was checked.

What it connects

Can Socially-Minded Governance Control the AGI Beast? → attributes to → Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies

Where it appears

No collection page holds this claim. It is listed with its records in the explorer.

Claim and evidence

Can Socially-Minded Governance Control the AGI Beast?attributes to ↓Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies

Machine-checked, not reviewed by an editorStated in sourceSupported

Supporting evidence: primary · 1 source

Date: 2023-11 · publication Records dated 2023 →
Kind of attribution: Builds on the work

Scope and limitsThe citing text's attribution; not evidence that the book caused the funders' concerns or OpenAI's structure, nor that the citing author agrees with the concerns.

The evidence 01

primary sourceSupports the claim

Can Socially-Minded Governance Control the AGI Beast?

NBER Working Paper 31924 · 2023-11

Cite the original source

Cite the original document, not Selekoa. Check these details against it.

Source excerpt

“These concerns had been outlined by Bostrom (2014), although they are controversial and subject to debate over whether such risks are salient (Gans, 2018) or a reason to slow AGI development (Jones, 2023).”

Location in source PDF p. 3, opening section

Machine-checked · 2026-10-31

Source details and check notes

Authors: Joshua S. Gans
Version: Current copy (NBER PDF), no archive capture compared. Retrieved 2026-10-11. SHA-256 3925302d6dd99aefc50cf3c959abd81aebbd5086d7f7364b8ded6bd364c6e8e4.
Canonical address: Open the canonical source ↗
Accessed: 2026-10-11
Language: English (en)
Attribution: Joshua S. Gans, “Can Socially-Minded Governance Control the AGI Beast?”, NBER Working Paper 31924, 2023-11.
Reuse: No open redistribution licence asserted. Bibliographic metadata, editorial paraphrases and short attributed quotations (at most 50 words each). Recheck terms before wider redistribution.
Check notes: Candidate pack passage, key papers (research/key-papers). The quotation (33 words) matched the text retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-10-28 (research/key-papers/verification.json). Matching ignored differences of whitespace, case, quotation marks, dashes and line-break hyphens, so the source’s typography can differ. A cross-family machine check (2026-10-30, item B005) found the attribution at its locator and in the citing text’s reference entry. No human editorial review.

Status and meaning

Editorial status. Not reviewed by an editor. An exploratory record that no editor has accepted. This status does not say whether a person has read any linked passage. Each evidence record above shows how it was checked.

Relation. A document expressly attributes an argument, concept, term, finding or approach to another work, in its own words; the kind of attribution is recorded. The record is the citing document’s claim. It is not evidence that the cited work originated the idea, that the attribution is accurate, or of influence beyond the passage. Citation alone is recorded as a citation.

Date. Date of the citing text as the dataset records it (November 2023).

Record ID kp-shaping-gans2023-bostrom