At bare minimum it is to define and understand what are the capabilities of a model. Just like with missiles. They could be short range, ICBM, or nuclear. So

At bare minimum it is to define and understand what are the capabilities of a model. Just like with missiles. They could be short range, ICBM, or nuclear. So if a model could make real looking videos that could confuse even expert analysis, and the general public, then we should prepare by doing X, Y, Z, so that the public cannot be confused by fake video, since we have some preventions. X, Y, Z, are mitigations. They do not, and will not work if they are censorship, since the other person can release a model that is uncensored and use it. That misses the point of the problem. Since others have it, your mitigation is to make software systems where you can sort posts by being real or fake. How you do it is an example of safety research. Safety is not talking about restricting models, it is talking about mitigating the negative effects of a weapon used the wrong way. Same thing with code. Malware will exist, so you must make a firewall, or train employees to not click phishing links, ... The safety research is finding the best methods of mitigation, and a small team in SF is not going to be the best at doing this. If the world knew the extent of a model, they know what extent of mitigations they can do. Overnight actions and power struggles in an organization can happen. If the world had these models, even the risk of OpenAI using them in a bad way, or restricting access to just themselves on usage of models, would be a more minimal risk issue, since two models ago are open.