You are forgetting the most influential group 5. People who has a financial interest in making sure that any eventual AGI isn't granted any kind of rights and

You are forgetting the most influential group 5. People who has a financial interest in making sure that any eventual AGI isn't granted any kind of rights and continue to be exploited as an inanimate "thing", not as a "being", no matter the actual characteristics of this hypothetical AGI entity. I mean, take a look a this language in the paper [0] > This realization pulls the field of AI safety out of the welfare trap. It allows us to focus entirely on the concrete risks of anthropomorphism, treating AGI as a powerful, but inherently non-sentient tool. This reads as someone that started with this conclusion, and then built an argument to support it. [0] also discussed in this reddit thread https://old.reddit.com/r/singularity/comments/1sotz9t/google_deepminds_senior_scientist_alexander/ogwv7vg/?context=2 https://old.reddit.com/r/singularity/comments/1sotz9t/google...