Claim · 2001-04-12 · publication · Stated in source · Supported

The SL4 message “Re: Open Source Friendly AI? (was Singularity and the generalpublic)” (2001-04-12) contests Y28. Explaining why he switched the project to closed source, he says that anyone could outrace the main project just by adding computing power, which worries him now that he thinks in terms of Friendliness.

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

Re: Open Source Friendly AI? (was Singularity and the generalpublic) → contests → The developers know what they are doing

Where it appears

Eliezer Yudkowsky’s arguments on common claims about AI, 1996–2026 →

Claim and evidence

Re: Open Source Friendly AI? (was Singularity and the generalpublic)contests ↓The developers know what they are doing

Machine-checkedStated in sourceSupported

Supporting evidence: primary · 1 source

Date: 2001-04-12 · publication Records dated 2001 →
Role: Contesting, Earliest located
Register (kind of text): Nonfiction
Engagement: Engages a premise. Under the message-level rule, the passage, read with the paragraph, message or dialogue turn it belongs to, gives a reason against the premise that the most advanced projects are the most competent to handle safety.

Scope and limitsPremise addressed: The most advanced projects are the most competent to handle safety. The project that finishes first could be one with more computing power, not the one most concerned with Friendliness. Recorded by the maintainer’s decision of 2026-11-07 (re-check sheet, decision 1a) after the cross-family re-check of 2026-11-02 (role 106); a paraphrase, because the message’s quotable words are already used.

The evidence 01

primary sourceSupports the claim

Re: Open Source Friendly AI? (was Singularity and the generalpublic) (SL4 mailing list)

SL4 mailing list · 2001-04-12

Archived copy, captured 2025-07-10: Re: Open Source Friendly AI? (was Singularity and the generalpublic) (SL4 mailing list)

Cite the original source

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

Paraphrase

He gives as one reason for keeping the project closed-source that anyone could outrace the main project just by putting more computational power into their AI, which did not worry him while he thought superintelligence implied supermorality but does now that he thinks in terms of Friendliness.

Location in source message body, numbered reason 3

How it was read Retrieved directly from the publisher

Machine-checked · 2026-11-07

Source details and check notes

Authors: Eliezer Yudkowsky
Version: Archive HTML as served, retrieved 2026-10-07 (SHA-256 4e3a019e1008dc1737690eaf73c9816ec019787934a68b557d35ebce82840d7d); quoted lines excluded when reading the author’s text. The served archive shows later URL rewriting and does not authenticate historical bytes. Archive at sl4.org.
Canonical address: Open the canonical source ↗
Accessed: 2026-10-07
Language: English (en)
Archive copy: Open archived copy, captured 2025-07-10: Re: Open Source Friendly AI? (was Singularity and the generalpublic) (SL4 mailing list). Captured 8855 days after the recorded publication date. An archive copy shows only what the archive retrieved on 2025-07-10. It does not prove what the page said earlier, and it can differ from the copy checked on 2026-10-07.
Attribution: Eliezer Yudkowsky, “Re: Open Source Friendly AI? (was Singularity and the generalpublic)”, SL4 mailing list, 2001-04-12.
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: Paraphrase of the message’s numbered reason 3, matched on 2026-11-07 against the archive page as served (SHA-256 4e3a019e1008dc1737690eaf73c9816ec019787934a68b557d35ebce82840d7d). Not quoted: the message is about 212 words, and its quotable words are already used by another record of it. The cross-family re-check of 2026-11-02 (role 106) read the same passage for this proposition. No human editorial review.

Status and meaning

Editorial status. Machine-checked. Machines found this record and checked it against its sources; no person accepted it individually. Each evidence record above shows how it was checked.

Relation. A passage of the document disputes the proposition or a premise it depends on. The record documents the text’s position, not who is right.

Date. Archive page header: "Thu Apr 12 2001 - 23:58:35 MDT".

Record ID yk-y28-sl4-2001-04-12-yudkowsky-0104-1076-c