No, open source is more of a libertarian model. No one is forced to work on open source.

> taxes would come to the governments in greater amount than before

I'm skeptical of this. See the last part of my post.

> Any idea of "wealth redistribution" seems ludicrous to me. Why is it not happening already?

Philanthropists like Bill Gates are already doing this on a large scale? 🤔

Oh, you mean like jobs getting automated years before the intelligence explosion?

Hmm, yeah I didn't think too much about that 🤔. I guess something like UBI would help in that case (but wouldn't be sufficient once the AGI is created and moves to the ocean)? Or maybe philanthropy will still suffice (despite not being a zillion dollars)?

I suppose the most practical individual advice might be to buy stock (fractional shares for the expensive ones) for the companies most likely to automate your job. This is a kind of hedging strategy, (if they don't succeed, the stock goes down but you keep your job).

As a non-profit, they are expected to follow their charter to some extent:

> We commit to use any influence we obtain over AGI’s deployment to ensure it is used for the benefit of all, and to avoid enabling uses of AI or AGI that harm humanity or unduly concentrate power.

In particular, the nonprofit wouldn't have any investors to pass profits to (and if they have AGI, no reason to do the weird profit cap thing again).

Although it is a bit ironic that art was first (because artists publish everything they do), the truth is that the same techniques apply to any creative activity (including technical problem solving). So by the time that AI can actually replace artists (it can't yet), it will replace everything else.