The assumption of "US-OGI-1" works well, but I think it's misleading to say that "the OGI model itself is geographically neutral—it could in principle be implemented by any technologically capable nation as host, or by multiple different countries as hosts for different AGI ventures."

Part of the appeal of this proposal is that "norms and laws around property ownership, investor rights, and corporate governance are comparatively well established and integrated with civilian society", but this clearly doesn't hold everywhere. 

The second-most-likely country for a leading AGI lab to emerge is China, and we can imagine a "China-OGI-1" scenario or a multipolar "US-OGI-n + China-OGI-n" scenario. In China, a few issues come to mind:

1. Weaker/more arbitrary corporate law and property rights, so no credible investor protections
2. More state/party interference in law, rights and governance
3. Weaker, less independent corporate governance 

I'm curious if you think that this would still be a good model, assuming China-OGI-1 or a multipolar scenario. Or does it make more sense to say that OGI is only a good model where these norms and laws are actually well-established and integrated? 

A few thoughts on this:

• I feel that there's a strong, slightly opposite bias of "picking winners" - I couldn't find a specific term for it (there's BIRGing (Basking in reflected glory) and bandwagon effects). It might be interesting to see when underdog bias vs. picking winners applies.
• A quick example: sports fans famously love an underdog story, but when choosing a football team to support, people from around the world without a local team almost always choose one of the strongest few teams. If underdog bias ruled, you'd see football fans around the world with T-shirts of random mid-tier sides.
• Evo-psych explanations (some listed in other comments) usually seem to explain "picking winners" more reliably. From siding with an alpha-male chimp to modern geopolitics, it can be dangerous to back a loser.
• But these aren't necessarily contradictory - the optimal strategy is often picking an underdog that's actually got a secret weapon (e.g. David vs. Goliath). If you commit to siding with an underdog that wins, the payoffs are probably greater than siding with a winning overdog.
• Slightly unrelated, there's also a debate as to the universality of underdog bias. While the headline is that it's somewhat universal, this paper (small sample, contrived experiment) finds that Israeli and Chinese respondents are slightly less underdog-prone than Japanese and American respondents. I sense there is something there - I often find "pro-overdog" narratives in Chinese media jarring. The theory might be that some cultures are more respecting of natural hierarchies or something

I enjoyed this post.

I'm interested in interpersonal variation on these issues. Some people feel very strong "hangry" emotions and even physical pain, whereas some people (like myself) feel almost no negative emotions or sensations when they don't eat for prolonged periods. 

But some people have an insatiable appetite, and when they start eating, they can't stop. If there's limitless food of the right type available, I can easily put away 2000+ calories in a meal. 

I wonder if these are anti-correlated in an interesting way. It seems that there could be an evolutionary logic that we need signals to eat, but these work through fairly distinct pathways, leading to subtly different "hunger phenotypes".