Latest news with #Nobel-prize
Herald Malaysia
2 hours ago
- Politics
- Herald Malaysia
‘Crippling' debt weighing down
3.3 billion people or nearly half the world's population, live in countries that spend more money on debt than on health care. Jun 06, 2025 VATICAN: 3.3 billion people or nearly half the world's population, live in countries that spend more money on debt than on health care. That was one of the more shocking statistics to emerge from a recent online town hall organised by Caritas Internationalis, the charitable arm of the Catholic Church. Held on May 28, the webinar brought together more than 200 individuals, humanitarian workers, internationally-recognised economists, and senior Vatican officials, to discuss debt, climate, and development. Alastair Dutton, Caritas' Secretary-General, introduced the discussion. He suggested that the fact that so many countries spend more on servicing their debt than on health care and education shows that, in today's economy, human beings are secondary 'to economic interest'. Dutton also highlighted that the subject of debt reform has already been raised by Pope Leo, just weeks into his pontificate. The topic was also seen as crucial, the Caritas chief noted, by the late Pope Francis who, in 2024, called for a 'multinational mechanism' to manage debt between countries, avoiding an 'every man for himself' mentality in which 'it is always the weakest' who lose out. In his remarks, Dutton highlighted Caritas' Turn Debt Into Hope campaign, which calls for the forgiveness of unjust debt. The aim of the campaign is to build public pressure around unfair debt practises. Caritas officer Alfonso Apicella explained, particularly in view of the Catholic Church's ongoing 2025 Jubilee Year, a period traditionally associated with financial clemency. 'There are 1.4 billion Catholics in the world,' Apicella said, 'and we want to show that they have agency.' Among the other speakers at the event was Professor Martin Guzmán of Columbia University, a former Argentinian Minister of Economy. Professor Guzmán highlighted the devastating effects of the global debt system on the world's poorest countries, which, he said, are charged higher interest rates than their richer peers. He also discussed the work of the Vatican's Jubilee Commission of Experts, chaired by the Nobel-prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, which is producing a report on debt and development crises in the Global South. Meanwhile, Sr Alessandra Smerilli, Secretary of the Holy See's Dicastery for Promoting Integral Human Development, highlighted Pope Francis' notion of the 'ecological debt' owed by rich countries towards the poorer countries, which are suffering the effects of a climate crisis which they have contributed much less to causing. This was a topic also touched on by Archbishop Gabriele Caccia, Permanent Observer of the Holy See to the United Nations, who noted that the concept of ecological debt was also highlighted by Pope Francis in his Bull of Indiction for the Jubilee Year. 'The concept of 'jubilee' is deeply rooted in Scripture as a time of restoration when debts are forgiven and relationships are reconciled,' Caccia explained. 'In our time, this tradition speaks directly to the lived experience of millions across the globe.' More than 50 nations are currently in or at high risk of bankruptcy and around half of the world's population are living in countries where debt payments exceed spending on services such as health care and education, the Holy See representative highlighted during the Wednesday meeting. Describing the current debt crisis as a 'profound failure of our global economic system,' Caccia expressed hope for a 'renewed vision of multilateralism' at the United Nations' upcoming fourth International Conference on Financing for Development to take place from June 30 to July 5 in Seville, Spain. 'No one is exempted from striving to ensure respect for the dignity of every person, especially the most frail and vulnerable,' Caccia said, quoting Pope Leo's May 16 speech to diplomats accredited to the Holy See. 'Together we can turn the jubilee vision of hope into a tangible action, ensuring that no one is left behind,' he shared with webinar participants. --Vatican Media/CNA
CNBC
3 days ago
- Business
- CNBC
6 Nobel prize-winning economists wrote a letter opposing Trump's budget bill: 'We have grave concerns'
The multitrillion-dollar tax and spending package House Republicans passed last month is heading to the Senate, with lawmakers hoping to pass a finalized bill by July 4. If passed in its current form, the bill — dubbed the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" — would, among other measures, make President Donald Trump's 2017 tax cuts permanent and add new tax breaks for tipped and overtime workers as well as older Americans. The bill's critics are hoping it may see some change's in Congress's upper house. Those include six Nobel-prize winning economists, who this week penned an open letter published through the Economic Policy Institute, a nonpartisan think tank. "As economists who have devoted our careers to researching how economies can grow and how the benefits of this growth can be translated into broadly shared prosperity and security, we have grave concerns about the budget reconciliation bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives on May 22, 2025," the letter says. The economists' main issue: cuts to Medicaid (the federal and state health-care program for low-income and disabled Americans) and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (formerly known as food stamps), which they see as essential for American families. The House version of the bill would cut Medicaid spending by $700 billion and slash SNAP by $300 billion — the largest cut in either program's history. "These steep cuts to the social safety net are being undertaken to defray the staggering cost of the tax cuts included in the House bill, including the hidden cost of preserving the large corporate income tax cut passed in the 2017 tax law," the letter says. "But even these sharp spending cuts will pay for far less than half of the tax cuts (not even including the cost of maintaining the corporate income tax cuts of the 2017 law)." These and other critics of the bill cite research that estimates the law will add to the national deficit — to tune of about $3 trillion to $5 trillion over the next decade, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget — while failing to lift up low-income Americans. "Given how much this bill adds to the U.S. debt, it is shocking that it still imposes absolute losses on the bottom 40% of U.S. households," the letter says. It remains to be seen if spending cuts will remain in the bill as-is. "Overall, the [Senate] bill is not going to be that much different," Howard Gleckman, senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, recently told CNBC, but added that he expects "a lot of debate" about the Medicaid provision in particular. One set of provisions — making the tax rates and brackets from the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act permanent — would maintain the status quo for taxpayers. That law's tax cuts, which were set to expire at the end of the year, included a major hike to the standard deduction, which "greatly simplified the tax code for millions of taxpayers," say analysts at the Tax Foundation. Proponents of the bill say these and other tax cuts will spark U.S. economic growth and laud the administration for delivering on several campaign trail promises. When it comes to cutting spending on social programs, Trump sees the reductions as an exercise in government efficiency. "We don't want any waste, fraud or abuse," he said in a recent Newsmax interview. "Other than that, we're leaving it." The economic Nobelists don't see it that way. "The House bill addresses none of the nation's key economic challenges usefully and exacerbates many of them," they write. "The Senate should refuse to pass this bill and start over from scratch on the budget." ,
Herald Malaysia
29-05-2025
- Business
- Herald Malaysia
Caritas: ‘Crippling' debt weighing down developing countries
Vatican officials, charity workers, and internationally-recognised economists come together to discuss debt reform in an online town hall organised by Caritas Internationalis. May 29, 2025 A participant at an International Monetary Fund meeting stands near the organisation's logo (Johannes P. Christo) By Joseph Tulloch3.3 billion people – or nearly half the world's population – live in countries that spend more money on debt than on healthcare. That was one of the more shocking statistics to emerge from a recent online town hall organised by Caritas Internationalis , the charitable arm of the Catholic Church. Held on Wednesday, the webinar brought together more than 200 individuals – humanitarian workers, internationally-recognised economists, and senior Vatican officials – to discuss debt, climate, and development. 'Turn debt into hope' Alastair Dutton, Caritas' Secretary-General, introduced the discussion. He suggested that the fact that so many countries spend more on servicing their debt than on healthcare and education shows that, in today's economy, human beings are secondary "to economic interest'. Dutton also highlighted that the subject of debt reform has already been raised by Pope Leo, just weeks into his pontificate. The topic was also seen as crucial, the Caritas chief noted, by the late Pope Francis – who, in 2024, called for a 'multinational mechanism' to manage debt between countries, avoiding an 'every man for himself' mentality in which 'it is always the weakest' who lose out. In his remarks, Dutton highlighted Caritas' Turn Debt Into Hope campaign, which calls for the forgiveness of unjust debt. The aim of the campaign – as Caritas officer Alfonso Apicella explained – is to build public pressure around unfair debt practises, particularly in view of the Catholic Church's ongoing 2025 Jubilee Year, a period traditionally associated with financial clemency. 'There are 1.4 billion Catholics in the world,' Apicella said, 'and we want to show that they have agency.' The impact of the debt system Among the other speakers at the event was Professor Martin Guzmán of Columbia University, a former Argentinian Minister of Economy. Professor Guzmán highlighted the devastating effects of the global debt system on the world's poorest countries, which, he said, are charged higher interest rates than their richer peers. He also discussed the work of the Vatican's Jubilee Commission of Experts, chaired by the Nobel-prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, which is producing a report on debt and development crises in the Global South. Meanwhile, Sister Alessandra Smerilli, Secretary of the Holy See's Dicastery for Promoting Integral Human Development, highlighted Pope Francis' notion of the 'ecological debt' owed by rich countries towards the poorer countries - which are suffering the effects of a climate crisis which they have contributed much less to causing. This was a topic also touched on by Archbishop Gabriele Caccia, Permanent Observer of the Holy See to the United Nations, who noted that the concept of ecological debt was also highlighted by Pope Francis in his Bull of Indiction for the Jubilee Year. Archbishop Caccia stressed the importance of clearly communicating the impact of the debt system on poor countries. 'It's not just a technical matter of economics,' he said, but 'a clear hindrance to integral human development.'--Vatican News
Asia Times
23-05-2025
- Politics
- Asia Times
Bangladesh autocrat gone, democratic renewal's a work in progress
Last July, a powerful student-led uprising in Bangladesh toppled the authoritarian, corrupt government led for 15 years by Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina. Bangladesh now shows modest signs of democratic recovery. Months into its tenure, a transitional government has reopened political and civic space, especially at universities, and begun reforming key state bodies. Yet, violence and political retribution persist. This month, the interim government banned Hasina's former party, the Awami League, under the country's Anti-Terrorism Act while a tribunal investigates its role in the deaths of hundreds of protesters last year. Elections have also been delayed and may not happen until 2026. Amid this fragile transition, interim leader Muhammad Yunus, the 84-year-old Nobel-prize winning economist, has emerged as a rare figure of trust and calm. His popularity is so high, in fact, many are calling for him to remain at the helm for another five years. Muhammad Yunus. Photo: Wikimedia Commons Given the uncertainty, Bangladesh faces some uncomfortable questions: can it afford electoral democracy right now? Or must stability come first, with democracy postponed until institutions can catch up? And what happens if emergency governance becomes the new normal? According to a global democracy report, Bangladesh is still classified as an 'electoral autocracy' — one of the few in the category that actually got worse in 2024. The opposition, chiefly the Bangladesh National Party (BNP), has mounted a fierce challenge to the interim government's legitimacy, arguing it lacks a democratic mandate to implement meaningful reforms. While the BNP and its former ally, the Islamist party Jamaat-e-Islami, may appeal to segments of Bangladesh's Muslim majority, their support is undermined by reputational baggage and limited resonance with younger voters. At the same time, radical, right-wing, Islamist forces are exploiting the vacuum to reassert themselves, exacerbating tensions between Muslims and the Hindu minority. Economically, the country is also still reeling from the damage done under Hasina's regime. Corruption hollowed out the banking system, leaving key institutions almost bankrupt. Although Yunus has taken steps to stabilise the economy by bringing in competent officials, uncertainty continues to dampen investor confidence. Inflation remains high. And unless job creation accelerates, especially for the youth, the seeds of further unrest are already planted. In addition, law and order have deteriorated sharply. The country's police force has been tainted by its association with the Alami League, and the former police chief is facing charges of crimes against humanity. Street crime is rising and minorities are experiencing growing harassment. Women feel deeply unsafe — both online and on the streets. Some parties are also seen as a threat to countering violence against women. Despite strong laws on paper, weak law enforcement and victim-blaming are allowing violence to flourish. It's very difficult to hold perpetrators of crimes to account. Bangladesh is also increasingly isolated on the global stage. India, long allied to Hasina's government, has turned its back on the interim government. The United States is disengaging, as well. USAID had committed nearly US$1 billion from 2021–26 to help improve the lives of Bangladeshis, but this funding has now been suspended. This year, Bangladesh improved slightly in Freedom House's index on political freedoms and civil liberties, from a score of 40 points out of 100 last year to 45. This is a step in the right direction. Among the improvements in the past year, the government has The appointment of new election commissioners and the creation of advisory commissions for judicial and anti-corruption reform also signal an institutional reset in motion. But gains remain fragile. While politically motivated cases against opposition figures have been dropped, new ones have emerged against former ruling elites. The military's policing role has expanded and harassment of Awami League supporters by protesters persists. In addition, media freedom remains heavily constrained, with a human rights group reporting the interim government had targeted hundreds of journalists in the past eight months. In this fractured environment, urgent reforms are needed. But these need to be sustainable, as well. Whether the interim government has the time, authority or support to deliver them remains in doubt. The government also needs to deliver on its promise to hold free and fair elections. The country's politically engaged youth have not been dissuaded by these issues. Rather, they are trying to reshape the political landscape. The new National Citizen Party (NCP) was formed in early 2025 by leaders of last year's student uprising. It has positioned itself as the party to bring a 'second republic' to Bangladesh. Drawing from historical models from France and the US, the party envisions an elected constituent assembly and a new constitution. With organizational support and tacit backing from the interim government, the NCP has rapidly grown into a viable political force. Still, the party faces a steep, uphill climb. Its broad, ideological umbrella risks diluting its message, blurring its distinctions with the BNP. For the NCP to turn protests into policy, it must sharpen its identity, consolidate its base, and avoid being co-opted or outflanked. Whether this moment of political flux leads to real transformation or yet another cycle of disillusionment will depend on how boldly — and how sustainably— the interim government and new actors like the NCP act. And they must not draw out the process of transition for too long. Intifar Chowdhury is a lecturer in government at Flinders University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Vox
24-04-2025
- Business
- Vox
Who should control OpenAI? Humanity.
is a senior writer at Future Perfect, Vox's effective altruism-inspired section on the world's biggest challenges. She explores wide-ranging topics like climate change, artificial intelligence, vaccine development, and factory farms, and also writes the Future Perfect newsletter. A version of this story originally appeared in the Future Perfect newsletter. Sign up here! Right now, OpenAI is something unique in the landscape of not just AI companies but huge companies in general. OpenAI's board of directors is bound not to the mission of providing value for shareholders, like most companies, but to the mission of ensuring that 'artificial general intelligence benefits all of humanity,' as the company's website says. (Still private, OpenAI is currently valued at more than $300 billion after completing a record $40 billion funding round earlier this year.) That situation is a bit unusual, to put it mildly, and one that is increasingly buckling under the weight of its own contradictions. For a long time, investors were happy enough to pour money into OpenAI despite a structure that didn't put their interests first, but in 2023, the board of the nonprofit that controls the company — yep, that's how confusing it is — fired Sam Altman for lying to them. This story was first featured in the Future Perfect newsletter. Sign up here to explore the big, complicated problems the world faces and the most efficient ways to solve them. Sent twice a week. It was a move that definitely didn't maximize shareholder value, was at best very clumsily handled, and made it clear that the nonprofit's control of the for-profit could potentially have huge implications — especially for its partner Microsoft, which has poured billions into OpenAI. Altman's firing didn't stick — he returned a week later after an outcry, with much of the board resigning. But ever since the firing, OpenAI has been considering a restructuring into, well, more of a normal company. Under this plan, the nonprofit entity that controls OpenAI would sell its control of the company and the assets that it owns. OpenAI would then become a for-profit company — specifically a public benefit corporation, like its rivals Anthropic and — and the nonprofit would walk away with a hotly disputed but definitely large sum of money in the tens of billions, presumably to spend on improving the world with AI. There's just one problem, argues a new open letter by legal scholars, several Nobel-prize winners, and a number of former OpenAI employees: The whole thing is illegal (and a terrible idea). Their argument is simple: The thing the nonprofit board currently controls — governance of the world's leading AI lab — makes no sense for the nonprofit to sell at any price. The nonprofit is supposed to act in pursuit of a highly specific mission: making AI go well for all of humanity. But having the power to make rules for OpenAI is worth more than even a mind-bogglingly large sum of money for that mission. 'Nonprofit control over how AGI is developed and governed is so important to OpenAI's mission that removing control would violate the special fiduciary duty owed to the nonprofit's beneficiaries,' the letter argues. Those beneficiaries are all of us, and the argument is that a big foundation has nothing on 'a role guiding OpenAI.' And it's not just saying that the move is a bad thing. It's saying that the board would be illegally breaching their duties if they went forward with it and the attorneys general of California and Delaware — to whom the letter is addressed because OpenAI is incorporated in Delaware and operates in California — should step in to stop it. I've previously covered the wrangling over OpenAI's potential change of structure. I wrote about the challenge of pricing the assets owned by the nonprofit, and we reported on Elon Musk's claim that his own donations early in OpenAI's history were misappropriated to make the for-profit. This is a different argument. It's not a claim that the nonprofit's control of the for-profit ought to produce a higher sale price. It's an argument that OpenAI, and what it may create, is literally priceless. OpenAI's mission 'is to ensure that artificial general intelligence is safe and benefits all of humanity,' Tyler Whitmer, a nonprofit lawyer and one of the letter's authors, told me. 'Talking about the value of that in dollars and cents doesn't make sense.' Are they right on the merits? Will it matter? That's substantially up to two people: California Attorney General Robert Bonta and Delaware Attorney General Kathleen Jennings. But it's a serious argument that deserves a serious hearing. Here's my attempt to digest it. How OpenAI became OpenAI When OpenAI was founded in 2015, its mission sounded absurd: to work towards the safe development of artificial general intelligence — which, it clarifies now, means artificial intelligence that can do nearly all economically valuable work — and ensure that it benefited all of humanity. Many people thought such a future was a hundred years away or more. But many of the few people who wanted to start planning for it were at OpenAI. They founded it as a nonprofit, saying that was the only way to ensure that all of humanity maintained a claim to humanity's future. 'We don't ever want to be making decisions to benefit shareholders,' Altman promised in 2017. 'The only people we want to be accountable to is humanity as a whole.' Worries about existential risk, too, loomed large. If it was going to be possible to build extremely intelligent AIs, it was going to be possible — even if it were accidental — to build ones that had no interest in cooperating with human goals and laws. 'Development of superhuman machine intelligence (SMI) is probably the greatest threat to the continued existence of humanity,' Altman said in 2015. Thus the nonprofit. The idea was that OpenAI would be shielded from the relentless incentive to make more money for shareholders — the kind of incentive that could drive it to underplay AI safety — and that it would have a governance structure that left it positioned to do the right thing. That would be true even if that meant shutting down the company, merging with a competitor, or taking a major (dangerous) product off the market. Future Perfect Explore the big, complicated problems the world faces and the most efficient ways to solve them. Sent twice a week. Email (required) Sign Up By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. 'A for-profit company's obligation is to make money for shareholders,' Michael Dorff, a professor of business law at the University of California Los Angeles, told me. 'For a nonprofit, those same fiduciary duties run to a different purpose, whatever their charitable purpose is. And in this case, the charitable purpose of the nonprofit is twofold: One is to develop artificial intelligence safely, and two is to make sure that artificial intelligence is developed for the benefit of all humanity.' 'OpenAI's founders believed the public would be harmed if AGI was developed by a commercial entity with proprietary profit motives,' the letter argues. In fact, the letter documents that OpenAI was founded precisely because many people were worried that AI would otherwise be developed within Google, which was and is a massive commercial entity with a profit motive. Even in 2019, when OpenAI created a 'capped for-profit' structure that would let them raise money from investors and pay the investors back up to a 100x return, they emphasized that the nonprofit was still in control. The mission was still not to build AGI and get rich but to ensure its development benefited all of humanity. 'We've designed OpenAI LP to put our overall mission — ensuring the creation and adoption of safe and beneficial AGI — ahead of generating returns for investors. … Regardless of how the world evolves, we are committed — legally and personally — to our mission,' the company declared in an announcement adopting the new structure. OpenAI made further commitments: To avoid an AI 'arms race' where two companies cut corners on safety to beat each other to the finish line, they built into their governing documents a 'merge and assist' clause where they'd instead join the other lab and work together to make the AI safe. And thanks to the cap, if OpenAI did become unfathomably wealthy, all of the wealth above the 100x cap for investors would be distributed to humanity. The nonprofit board — meant to be composed of a majority of members who had no financial stake in the company — would have ultimate control. In many ways the company was deliberately restraining its future self, trying to ensure that as the siren call of enormous profits grew louder and louder, OpenAI was tied to the mast of its original mission. And when the original board made the decision to fire Altman, they were acting to carry out that mission as they saw it. Now, argues the new open letter, OpenAI wants to be unleashed. But the company's own arguments over the last 10 years are pretty convincing: The mission that they set forth is not one that a fully commercial company is likely to pursue. Therefore, the attorneys general should tell them no and instead work to ensure the board is resourced to do what 2019-era OpenAI intended the board to be resourced to do. What about a public benefit corporation? OpenAI, of course, doesn't intend to become a fully commercial company. The proposal I've seen floated is to become a public benefit corporation. 'Public benefit corporations are what we call hybrid entities,' Dorff told me. 'In a traditional for-profit, the board's primary duty is to make money for shareholders. In a public benefit corporation, their job is to balance making money with public duties: They have to take into account the impact of the company's activities on everyone who is affected by them.' The problem is that the obligations of public benefit corporations are, for all practical purposes, unenforceable. In theory, if a public benefit corporation isn't benefitting the public, you — a member of the public — are being wronged. But you have no right to challenge it in court. 'Only shareholders can launch those suits,' Dorff told me. Take a public benefit corporation with a mission to help end homelessness. 'If a homeless advocacy organization says they're not benefitting the homeless, they have no grounds to sue.' Only OpenAI's shareholders could try to hold it accountable if it weren't benefitting humanity. And 'it's very hard for shareholders to win a duty-of-care suit unless the directors acted in bad faith or were engaging in some kind of conflict of interest,' Dorff said. 'Courts understandably are very deferential to the board in terms of how they choose to run the business.' That means, in theory, a public benefit corporation is still a way to balance profit and the good of humanity. In practice, it's one with the thumb hard on the scales of profit, which is probably a significant part of why OpenAI didn't choose to restructure to a public benefit corporation back in 2019. 'Now they're saying we didn't foresee that,' Sunny Gandhi of Encode Justice, one of the letter's signatories, told me. 'And that is a deliberate lie to avoid the truth of — they originally were founded in this way because they were worried about this happening.' But, I challenged Gandhi, OpenAI's major competitors Anthropic and are both public benefit corporations. Shouldn't that make a difference? 'That's kind of asking why a conservation nonprofit can't convert to being a logging company just because there are other logging companies out there,' he told me. In this view, yes, Anthropic and X both have inadequate governance that can't and won't hold them accountable for ensuring humanity benefits from their AI work. That might be a reason to shun them, protest them or demand reforms from them, but why is it a reason to let OpenAI abandon its mission? I wish this corporate governance puzzle had never come to me, said Frodo Reading through the letter — and speaking to its authors and other nonprofit law and corporate law experts — I couldn't help but feel badly for OpenAI's board. (I have reached out to OpenAI board members for comment several times over the last few months as I've reported on the nonprofit transition. They have not returned any of those requests for comment.) The very impressive suite of people responsible for OpenAI's governance have all the usual challenges of being on the board of a fast-growing tech company with enormous potential and very serious risks, and then they have a whole bunch of puzzles unique to OpenAI's situation. Their fiduciary duty, as Altman has testified before Congress, is to the mission of ensuring AGI is developed safely and to the benefit of all humanity. But most of them were selected after Altman's brief firing with, I would argue, another implicit assignment: Don't screw it up. Don't fire Sam Altman. Don't terrify investors. Don't get in the way of some of the most exciting research happening anywhere on Earth. What, I asked Dorff, are the people on the board supposed to do, if they have a fiduciary duty to humanity that is very hard to live up to? Do they have the nerve to vote against Altman? He was less impressed than me with the difficulty of this plight. 'That's still their duty,' he said. 'And sometimes duty is hard.' That's where the letter lands, too. OpenAI's nonprofit has no right to cede its control over OpenAI. Its obligation is to humanity. Humanity deserves a say in how AGI goes. Therefore, it shouldn't sell that control at any price. It shouldn't sell that control even if it makes fundraising much more convenient. It shouldn't sell that control even though its current structure is kludgy, awkward, and not meant for handling a challenge of this scale. Because it's much, much better suited to the challenge than becoming yet another public benefit corporation would be. OpenAI has come further than anyone imagined toward the epic destiny it envisioned for itself in 2015. But if we want the development of AGI to benefit humanity, the nonprofit will have to stick to its guns, even in the face of overwhelming incentive not to. Or the state attorneys general will have to step in.
