Claim and evidence Close ×
Goertzel and Pitt's paper of February 2012 states that the authors believe, on qualitative grounds, that an open approach to developing artificial general intelligence is probably preferable to a closed one, citing the wider critique an open codebase receives. Copy claim link
Copy claim reference
Machine-checked, not reviewed by an editor Stated in source Supported
Supporting evidence: primary · 1 source; Context: primary · 1 source
Date 2012-02 · publication Records dated 2012 → Role Earliest located, Earliest located use of the name Register (kind of text) Nonfiction Name used “open source” Scope and limits The paper concerns open-source AGI code and development, before model weights were the object of the debate; the authors say they do not argue the point rigorously and name the risk of malevolent groups forking an open project. A statement of the authors' intuition, not evidence that open development is safer.
The evidence 03 primary source Supports the claim
Nine Ways to Bias Open-Source AGI Toward Friendliness ↗ Journal of Evolution and Technology 22(1), February 2012, pp. 116-131 (jetpress.org) · 2012-02
Copy source reference
Cite the original source Cite the original document, not Selekoa. Check these details against it.
Copy APA
Download BibTeX Download RIS Download CSL-JSON
Source excerpt “We do believe intuitively that the open approach is probably preferable, but our reasons are qualitative and we recognize there are also qualitative arguments in the opposite direction.” Location in source Section 2, "Is open or closed AGI development safer?"
How it was read Retrieved directly from the publisher
Machine-checked · 2026-10-31
Source details and check notes Authors Ben Goertzel; Joel Pitt Version Retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-10-29 (SHA-256 92deaf949c02bcdc123427cda9d9d4d2e476207e703b473979a7a39be2cd33de). Journal HTML page as currently served (converted from the authors' TeX source, v6); no archive capture compared. The cross-family check retrieved it again on 2026-10-31, with the same bytes. Canonical address Open the canonical source ↗ Accessed 2026-10-29 Language English (en) Attribution Ben Goertzel, Joel Pitt, “Nine Ways to Bias Open-Source AGI Toward Friendliness”, 2012-02. 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, arguments about catastrophic risk from advanced AI (research/risk-debate). The quotation (28 words) matched the text retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-10-29. Matching ignored differences of whitespace, case, quotation marks, dashes and Unicode compatibility forms, so the source’s typography can differ. A cross-family machine check (2026-10-31, item 63) answered the record’s question blind and agreed with its stance. No human editorial review. primary source Supports the claim
Nine Ways to Bias Open-Source AGI Toward Friendliness ↗ Journal of Evolution and Technology 22(1), February 2012, pp. 116-131 (jetpress.org) · 2012-02
Copy source reference
Cite the original source Cite the original document, not Selekoa. Check these details against it.
Copy APA
Download BibTeX Download RIS Download CSL-JSON
Paraphrase The authors cite Linus's law ("Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow") and write that a closed approach makes it very hard to obtain the level of critique a public, open codebase receives.
Location in source Section 2
How it was read Retrieved directly from the publisher
Machine-checked · 2026-10-31
Source details and check notes Authors Ben Goertzel; Joel Pitt Version Retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-10-29 (SHA-256 92deaf949c02bcdc123427cda9d9d4d2e476207e703b473979a7a39be2cd33de). Journal HTML page as currently served (converted from the authors' TeX source, v6); no archive capture compared. The cross-family check retrieved it again on 2026-10-31, with the same bytes. Canonical address Open the canonical source ↗ Accessed 2026-10-29 Language English (en) Attribution Ben Goertzel, Joel Pitt, “Nine Ways to Bias Open-Source AGI Toward Friendliness”, 2012-02. 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, arguments about catastrophic risk from advanced AI (research/risk-debate). The paraphrase is Selekoa’s, written from the text retrieved for the candidate pack; it is not a quotation and was not machine-matched. A cross-family machine check (2026-10-31, item 63) answered the record’s question blind and agreed with its stance. No human editorial review. primary source Context only
Nine Ways to Bias Open-Source AGI Toward Friendliness ↗ Journal of Evolution and Technology 22(1), February 2012, pp. 116-131 (jetpress.org) · 2012-02
Copy source reference
Cite the original source Cite the original document, not Selekoa. Check these details against it.
Copy APA
Download BibTeX Download RIS Download CSL-JSON
Source excerpt “we also understand the risk of terrorist groups or other malevolent agents forking an open source AGI project and creating something terribly dangerous and destructive” Location in source Section 2
How it was read Retrieved directly from the publisher
Machine-checked · 2026-10-31
Source details and check notes Authors Ben Goertzel; Joel Pitt Version Retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-10-29 (SHA-256 92deaf949c02bcdc123427cda9d9d4d2e476207e703b473979a7a39be2cd33de). Journal HTML page as currently served (converted from the authors' TeX source, v6); no archive capture compared. The cross-family check retrieved it again on 2026-10-31, with the same bytes. Canonical address Open the canonical source ↗ Accessed 2026-10-29 Language English (en) Attribution Ben Goertzel, Joel Pitt, “Nine Ways to Bias Open-Source AGI Toward Friendliness”, 2012-02. 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, arguments about catastrophic risk from advanced AI (research/risk-debate). The quotation (25 words) matched the text retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-10-29. Matching ignored differences of whitespace, case, quotation marks, dashes and Unicode compatibility forms, so the source’s typography can differ. The counter-consideration the authors weigh. A cross-family machine check (2026-10-31, item 63) answered the record’s question blind and agreed with its stance. 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 passage of the document meets the proposition’s criterion. The record documents what the text states, in its register (fiction and satire are labelled); it is not evidence that the proposition is true and implies no influence on or from another text.
Date. Date of publication, as the source gives it.
Record ID rd-r15-goertzel-pitt-2012-open-source-agi