MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406619528 · doi:10.1287/mnsc.2024.05529

Can Socially Minded Governance Control the Artificial General Intelligence Beast?

2025· article· en· W4406619528 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueManagement Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInnovation, Sustainability, Human-Machine Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCorporate governanceControl (management)Computer scienceBusinessArtificial intelligenceOperations researchEconomicsManagement scienceManagementMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper robustly concludes that it cannot. A model is constructed under idealized conditions that presume that the risks associated with artificial general intelligence (AGI) are real, that safe AGI products are possible, and that there exist socially minded funders who are interested in funding safe AGI, even if this does not maximize profits. It is demonstrated that a socially minded entity formed by such funders would not be able to minimize harm from AGI that unrestricted products released by for-profit firms might create. The reason is that a socially minded entity can only minimize the use of unrestricted AGI products in ex post competition with for-profit firms at a prohibitive financial cost and so, does not preempt the AGI developed by for-profit firms ex ante. This paper was accepted by Maria Guadalupe, business strategy.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.788
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.310 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it