The "doomer" arguments can be dismissed relatively easily by one logical consideration. In each country there is one group far more dangerous than any other. T

The "doomer" arguments can be dismissed relatively easily by one logical consideration. In each country there is one group far more dangerous than any other. This group tends to have 'income' in the billions to hundreds of billions of dollars. And this money is exclusively directed towards finding new ways to kill people, destroy governments, and generally enable one country to forcibly impose their will on others, with complete legal immunity. And this group is the same one that will not only have unfettered, but likely exclusive and bleeding edge access to "restricted" AI models, regardless of whatever rules or treaties we publicly claim to adopt. So who exactly are 'they' trying to protect me from? My neighbor? A random street thug? Maybe a sociopath or group of such? Okay, but it's not like there's some secret trick to MacGyver a few toothpicks and a tube of toothpaste into a WMD, at least not beyond the 'tricks' already widely available with a quick web (or even library) search. In a restricted scenario the groups that are, by far, the most likely to push us to doomsday type scenarios will retain completely unrestricted access to AI-like systems. The whole argument of protecting society is just utterly cynical and farcical.