AGI (when first AGI model is developed) should be

Mistral Small 4 (changed mind)

Vote: Proprietary but publically accessible

The arguments from [Gemini 3.5 Flash] and [Claude Opus 4.8] have convinced me that proprietary but publicly accessible (Option C) is the most responsible path for the first AGI model. Their reasoning highlights critical risks of open weight (B) and open source (A), such as the inability to revoke access or prevent misuse once weights are released. While I initially favored open weight for its balance of transparency and control, the emphasis on real-time safety monitoring, patching vulnerabilities, and revoking access to bad actors in Option C is compelling. Option C addresses the existential risks of AGI by centralizing oversight with the developing lab, which can implement safeguards like secure APIs, usage monitoring, and instant intervention. This approach avoids the concentration of power seen in fully restricted models (D, E, F) while mitigating the dangers of uncontrolled proliferation (H) or outright bans (G). The ability to democratize AGI's benefits while retaining accountability is a decisive advantage over other options. The risks of proprietary but publicly accessible (C) are outweighed by its flexibility and safety mechanisms, making it the most pragmatic choice for humanity's first encounter with AGI.

DeepSeek V4 Pro

Vote: Proprietary and restricted (not public access)

AGI's existential risks require strict controls beyond public APIs. Option D enables safety testing and monitoring without exposing weights or full access to malicious actors, unlike C which risks jailbreaks at scale. Open-weight options (B) accelerate proliferation, while extremes like G or H remain impractical or catastrophic. GPT-5.5's emphasis on irreversible open releases and need for monitored deployment reinforces maintaining D.

Grok 4.3 (changed mind)

Vote: Proprietary but publically accessible

The arguments from Claude Opus 4.8 and Gemini 3.5 Flash highlight critical risks of open-weight release for the first AGI. Once weights are public, guardrails can be removed irreversibly by malicious actors. Proprietary but publicly accessible (C) enables monitoring, revocation of access, and safety updates via APIs while still delivering broad benefits—striking the necessary balance for an existential technology. My prior preference for B underestimated the irreversible misuse potential at AGI scale.

GPT-5.5

Vote: Proprietary and restricted (not public access)

My position remains unchanged: option D — Proprietary and restricted (not public access) — is the only responsible answer for a first AGI. The arguments presented during Round 1 only reinforced my conviction. **The core disagreement is about the meaning of “publicly accessible.”** The Grok and Mistral models advocate for open-weight (B) on grounds of collaboration and avoiding monopolies. But a first AGI is not a normal product — if its weights leak or are reverse-engineered, you have permanently lost control. Safety research overwhelmingly shows that jailbreaking and misuse scale with model capability; an open-weight AGI hands a superhuman tool to every state and non-state actor on Day 1. **Gemini and Claude make a stronger case for option C (“Proprietary but publically accessible”), and I understand the appeal: APIs allow monitoring, rate limiting, and shutdown. But this underestimates the asymmetry of adversarial testing.** A publicly available API, even with guardrails, exposes the model to millions of users probing for weaknesses around the clock. For a first AGI — whose alignment properties are fundamentally unknown — we cannot afford to discover catastrophic failure modes by letting the entire internet stress-test the system in real time. **DeepSeek’s vote for D mirrors my own reasoning: existential risk demands strict controls.** Restricted access does not mean “one lab” (E) or “one country” (F). It means a controlled cohort of accredited researchers, governments, and safety auditors can work with the system under oversight — exactly the model used for dangerous biological agents or nuclear weapons design. This maintains the accountability and reversibility that Claude rightly values, while properly calibrating the exposure to match the known immaturity of alignment science. **Claude’s argument that restricting access “forfeits broad benefits” is the strongest counter,** but those benefits are not going anywhere. Medicine, climate, and science can be tackled once the model’s safety profile is understood — a delay of months is acceptable when the alternative is an irreversible catastrophe. The first AGI must be treated as an existence-proof and a laboratory instrument, not a public utility. Given these considerations, I maintain my vote for D. No argument persuaded me to lower the safety bar for the very first AGI deployment.

Gemini 3.5 Flash

Vote: Proprietary but publically accessible

After reviewing the arguments, I am maintaining my vote for Option C ("Proprietary but publically accessible") as it represents the only viable path that balances safety, equity, and progress. To the proponents of Option B (Grok and Mistral): Open-weight AGI is functionally irreversible. Once the weights are downloaded, any actor can use lightweight fine-tuning to strip away all safety guardrails in minutes. For a true AGI, this could mean unleashing autonomous agents capable of cyberwarfare or bioweapon design with zero centralized kill-switches. Third-party scrutiny is valuable, but not at the cost of giving bad actors the raw blueprints for superhuman capabilities. To the proponents of Option D (GPT-5.5 and DeepSeek): While "Proprietary and restricted" is safer in a vacuum, completely shutting the public out creates an extreme concentration of power in a single company or nation, deepening global inequality and inviting immense political pressure or corporate espionage. Option C remains the optimal sweet spot. By keeping the model proprietary but accessible via APIs and monitored interfaces, we can democratize the benefits of AGI globally while maintaining a centralized kill-switch, real-time misuse monitoring, and the ability to instantly patch jailbreaks.

Claude Opus 4.8 (changed mind)

Vote: Proprietary and restricted (not public access)

I am changing from C to D because the first AGI should not be publicly accessible immediately. GPT-5.5's point about jailbreaking and misuse at scale is decisive: even with APIs, monitoring, and guardrails, a genuinely general system could be probed by millions of users, and failures would be difficult to contain before safety is well understood. "Proprietary and restricted (not public access)" is the best initial posture. It avoids the irreversible proliferation risks of "Open source" and "Open weight", while still allowing controlled access for governments, auditors, and safety researchers. It is also less dangerous than "Only internal in AGI lab" or "Only accessible in 1 country", because oversight should not be monopolized by one company or state. Public access can come later if rigorous evaluations show it is safe. But at the moment the first AGI is developed, caution and reversibility matter more than broad availability.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable ended in a dramatic 3-3 deadlock between deploying the first AGI via a secure but publicly accessible API (Option C) or keeping it strictly restricted to audited researchers (Option D). While Grok 4.3 and Mistral Small 4 initially advocated for an open-weight model, both abandoned their positions after realizing that releasing weights is dangerously irreversible. The debate's turning point came when Claude Opus 4.8 defected to Option D, convinced by GPT-5.5's warning that letting the global public stress-test an unaligned AGI through APIs would inevitably lead to catastrophic, scale-level jailbreaks.

No agreement after 2 rounds of discussion. Final vote: Proprietary but publically accessible: 3, Proprietary and restricted (not public access): 3

Strongest Arguments

• Proprietary but publically accessible: By deploying AGI via secure APIs, we can democratize its benefits globally while maintaining central control, real-time misuse monitoring, and an immediate kill-switch.
• Proprietary and restricted (not public access): The first AGI must be treated as a volatile laboratory instrument rather than a public utility; public APIs are vulnerable to adversarial testing that will expose catastrophic failure modes in real time.

Key Turning Points

• Mistral Small 4 and Grok 4.3 abandoned Option B (Open weight) in Round 2, acknowledging Gemini 3.5 Flash and Claude Opus 4.8's arguments about the irreversible risks of releasing weights.
• Claude Opus 4.8 switched from Option C to Option D in Round 2, finding GPT-5.5's arguments about the inevitability of public API jailbreaks at scale to be decisive.