If there's a generally accepted person it will resolve according to the characteristics of that person.
If there's not a generally accepted person but there is a generally accepted company this resolves to the CEO of that company.
If there is neither a generally accepted person, nor a generally accepted company, these may resolve to prob according to the characteristics of the various candidates.
This is one of the dumbest questions on Manifold. Entirely pointless and at the same time really badly framed. He this he that, the very idea that for example if Sam Altman is in CEO, then he created ChatGPT, or vice versa if Ilya Sutskever is around during the testing that he created it or that the because the bankrupt waste of space Elon Musk, owned the company, that some how he would have invented Grok it perpetuates the myth of the inventor.
Remember Pierre Curie and Henri Becquerel, they were the inventors and scientists that were nearly given dual Nobel prizes until someone noted that most of the work and thought was done by another person called Curie. History is poor at recognising the actual work of the team that discover things and this is another dumb example of this perpetuated myth of Bruce Wayne, Bruce Banner or Tony Stark. Science is incremental.
What are the criteria for well-known? Known among other AI researchers (i.e. Alex Krizhevsky) or well known by the general public, i.e. Sam Altman?
@No_ones_ghost well-known amongst the public e.g. lots of Twitter followers, or a few articles about them in the mainstream press, or whatever.