[jairuhme]

When you say 'catastrophic for humanity', what exactly do you think would happen? And how would regulating models thwart this? Bad actors who are motivated surely will get around US restrictions. I'd imagine when the internet first came around that there was similar sentiment. "People will have access to information on how to create bombs, we need to regulate this so that doesn't happen!"

[coryfklein]

When playing against a better chess player than me, the whole point is that I cannot predict what move they will make, and that is how the opponent wins. So you don't need to be able to predict what move the AGI will make, only that no matter what move you make it will do better.

But super off-hand idea if I'm trying to be creative. The AGI formulates a chemical that kills humans 90 days after inhalation, hires a chemical lab to synthesize it and forward it to municipalities across the world, and convinces them it's a standard treatment that the WHO has mandated be introduced.

> And how would regulating models thwart this?

I don't think it would. The OP article is about regulation that increases the access to the ingredients for AI, and I'm simply unconvinced that is a recipe for increasing AI safety.