Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
Some links on this page are affiliate links: if you buy through them we may earn a commission, at no extra cost to you.
Former OpenAI safety researcher Leopold Aschenbrenner said he heard that company leadership had once discussed funding and selling artificial general intelligence (AGI) through a bidding contest among the United States, China, and Russia.
But the allegation was secondhand. In a June 4, 2024 interview with Dwarkesh Patel, Aschenbrenner said the information did not come from his own time at OpenAI and that he had not seen the alleged memo. There is no publicly verified evidence in the cited material that OpenAI adopted, funded, or executed such a plan.
What Aschenbrenner alleged
Aschenbrenner described a proposal in which OpenAI would fund and sell AGI while encouraging governments to compete for access. He said the countries discussed were the United States, China, and Russia.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errors2Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitches3Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsAs he recounted it, the strategy could involve pressuring governments with arguments that they needed to support the effort because a rival—particularly China—might otherwise gain an advantage. He also said he found it surprising that the purported idea contemplated selling AGI to Chinese and Russian governments.
#1 Best Overall
The wording matters. Aschenbrenner said he had heard the account from multiple people, but he did not identify them publicly. He said it was not information he learned during his own time at OpenAI and acknowledged that he had not seen the memo said to describe the idea.
What the evidence establishes—and what it does not
The primary evidence establishes that Aschenbrenner made the allegation in the interview. It does not establish that the alleged proposal was an approved company policy or an operational plan.
- Established: Aschenbrenner publicly described hearing about a proposed AGI bidding strategy.
- Not established: That OpenAI leadership formally approved the proposal.
- Not established: That the company funded or implemented it.
- Not established: That OpenAI sold or offered AGI to China or Russia.
- Not established: That a bidding process actually occurred.
- Not established: That the alleged memo exists in publicly available evidence.
“Sell AGI” is also ambiguous. It could refer to government contracts, licensing, infrastructure financing, exclusive access, or another arrangement. The interview does not define the proposed commercial mechanism.
AGI in this context
AGI generally refers to an artificial intelligence system capable of performing a broad range of intellectual tasks at a level comparable to or beyond humans. The term has no universally accepted operational definition.
Rank #2
It is therefore misleading to describe the allegation as if OpenAI had a finished AGI product ready for an international auction. In this context, “selling AGI” refers to a hypothetical future capability and possible government access, financing, or strategic partnership—not a documented commercial transaction.
OpenAI’s response
OpenAI disputed Aschenbrenner’s characterization of its work while saying that it shared his commitment to building safe AGI, according to reporting carried by Yahoo.
In separate reporting, an OpenAI spokesperson told Business Insider that the concerns Aschenbrenner raised internally and with the board did not lead to his separation. That is OpenAI’s account; it is not an independently adjudicated finding about the dispute.
OpenAI’s public response, as reported in the cited sources, should not be overstated as a detailed point-by-point rebuttal of the alleged bidding-war account. The company rejected his broader characterization, but the available material does not document a full public response addressing every detail.
Why a government bidding war would matter
If such a proposal had existed, it would raise major questions about who controls transformative AI capabilities and how access is allocated.
National security
Advanced AI could affect military planning, intelligence analysis, cyber operations, economic competitiveness, and critical infrastructure. Giving a powerful capability to rival governments would therefore involve security consequences well beyond an ordinary software sale.
Export controls and technical access
A private company could not necessarily transfer advanced computing systems, model weights, or technical capabilities freely across borders. Export controls, sanctions, national-security reviews, and restrictions on high-end chips could all constrain any hypothetical arrangement.
PC Slower Than It Used to Be?
A free scan shows the junk files, broken settings and background clutter dragging Windows down - then fixes them in one click.Free scan · Windows 10 & 11Outdated Drivers Are Slowing You Down
One free scan finds every outdated or missing driver and matches the right update for your exact hardware.Free scan · exact hardware matchEscalation risks
Using competition among the United States, China, and Russia to attract funding could intensify an AI arms race. Governments might feel compelled to spend or act quickly because they feared that a rival would otherwise obtain the technology first.
Governance and accountability
The allegation also raises a basic governance question: should a private company decide which governments receive access to a technology with potentially global consequences? A bidding model could prioritize financial or geopolitical leverage over international safeguards, transparency, and public accountability.
Commercial incentives
A company seeking the highest-value government deal could face incentives that conflict with cautious deployment. The possibility of lucrative state contracts might encourage secrecy, exclusivity, or rapid escalation rather than broad oversight.
These are implications of the alleged strategy, not evidence that the strategy existed.
The separate dispute over Aschenbrenner’s departure
Aschenbrenner connected his departure from OpenAI to disagreements involving security, Chinese espionage and algorithmic-theft risks, AGI governance, and information he said he had shared with board members or outside researchers.
Best Value
According to his account in the interview, OpenAI questioned him about a memo warning about possible Chinese Communist Party espionage, his views on AI progress and AGI, the appropriate security level for AGI, government involvement, his loyalty to OpenAI, and documents or other digital materials from his time at the company.
Those claims describe his explanation for the separation and should be attributed to him. OpenAI said his concerns did not cause the separation. The dispute over his departure does not independently corroborate the separate allegation about an AGI bidding war.
Bottom line
The documented fact is that Leopold Aschenbrenner made the claim. He said he heard from multiple people that OpenAI leadership had once discussed funding and selling AGI through competition among the United States, China, and Russia. He also said he had not seen the alleged memo and was not recounting something learned during his own OpenAI employment.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
That makes the allegation worth examining, particularly because of its national-security and governance implications—but it is not proof that OpenAI had a confirmed plan to sell AGI to China or Russia.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
