208 12 The Engineering and Development of Ethics rise to questions about the ethical value of various practical modalities of AGI development, for instance: e Should AGI be developed in a top-secret installation by a select group of individuals selected for a combination of technical and scientific brilliance and moral uprightness, or other qualities deemed relevant (a “closed approach")? Or should it be developed out in the open, in the manner of open-source software projects like Linux? (an "open approach"). The open approach allows the collective intelligence of the world to more fully participate — but also potentially allows the more unsavory elements of the human race to take some of the publicly-developed AGI concepts and tools private, and develop them into AGIs with selfish or evil purposes in mind. Is there some meaningful intermediary between these extremes? e Should governments regulate AGI, with Friendliness in mind (as advocated carefully by e.g Bill Hibbard [Hib02])? Or will this just cause AGI development to move to the handful of countries with more liberal policies? ... or cause it to move underground, where nobody can see the dangers developing? As a rough analogue, it’s worth noting that the US government’s imposition of restrictions on stem cell research, under President George W. Bush, appears to have directly stimulated the provision of additional funding for stem cell research in other nations like Korea, Singapore and China. The former issue is, obviously, highly relevant to CogPrime (which is currently being devel- oped via the open source CogPrime project); and so the various dimensions of this issues are worth briefly sketching here. We have a strong skepticism of selfappointed elite groups that claim (even if they genuinely believe) that they know what’s best for everyone, and a healthy respect for the power of collective intelligence and the Global Brain, which the open approach is ideal for tapping. On the other hand, we also under