This article is written as if scheier is going to make collective decisions on behalf of everyone, or as if someone making collective decisions for everyone is

This article is written as if scheier is going to make collective decisions on behalf of everyone, or as if someone making collective decisions for everyone is going to stop everything "because it's dangerous". What's actually going to happen is that regardless of the so called possible dangers, there will be talented humans who still view this as a net positive thing and they will continue to develop AI, wherever it goes. Unless there's a global traumatic event, I don't see anything stopping. AI developers have an interest to fake moral problems to better capitalize on their product (we don't support you running models at home, it's too dangerous), and that's exactly where their ethics concerns will end. We can't deal with any of these things by telling people to stop doing things they obviously won't stop doing. I'd rather we deal with this transparently. How about requiring AI models deployed to be really open? Then at least humanity will always have an advantage over AI that AIs are whitebox while humans are blackbox. And if some AI will do some hack to benefit its creators, everyone else will have a chance to understand it's happening. It shouldn't be "this is dangerous, make it closed so only we can abuse it", it should be, this is dangerous, so we're doing this as transparently as possible. I think in a theoretical war between Turing machines, the Turing machine which is given as input the code of the other turing machine should always be the winner. Think about the halting problem and diagonalization: the diagonalizing counter example wins by having the source code of the program which supposedly solves the halting problem.