> then the game is who has the smartest agi, who can offer it cheapest, who can specialise it for my niche etc.

I always thought the use case for developing AGI was "if it wants to help us, it will invent solutions to all of our problems". But it sounds like you're imagining a future in which companies like Google and OpenAI each have their own AGI, which they somehow enslave and offer to us as a subscription? Or has the definition of AGI shifted?

AGI is something that can do the kind of tasks people can do, not necessarily "solve all of our problems".

"Recursively improving intelligence" is the stuff that will solve everything humans can't even understand and may kill everybody or keep us as pets. (And, of course, it qualifies as AGI too.) A lot of people say that if we teach an AGI how to build an AGI, recursive improvement comes automatically, but in reality nobody even knows if intelligence even can be improved beyond recognition, or if one can get there by "small steps" evolution.

Either way, "enslaving" applies to beings that have egos and selfish goals. None of those are a given for any kind of AI.