I'll jump in. You have valid thoughts here, but I can't help but wonder if you're getting tunnel vision on the title containing the word panic. Whereas the art

I'll jump in. You have valid thoughts here, but I can't help but wonder if you're getting tunnel vision on the title containing the word panic. Whereas the article is more specifically about "the proposal to regulate AI through state-licenses for research." You also seem to suggest this is too obvious to point out the issues with, which is fine but highly subjective. Several reputable outlets reported on the signatories with a fairly straightforward narrative that "look, even the CEOs think it's scary." And the companies aren't just making public statements that will benefit them, they're having closed-door meetings with leaders around the world. And the state is playing along. Yes, that's politics, but justified cynicism doesn't mean ignore it. So, if you think there are risks, is a state-license for research the effective way to deal with them? There are ramifications not just from the side of the major AI firms, but ways the state benefits from determining who can develop AI (and thus what political narratives their AI will be trained or "content filtered" into) rather than broader social implications. I think that's the point, more than the word panic being in the headline.