[red_green_yell]

These 1000 employees have generational wealth riding on the ability for their companies to IPO. They know that those IPOs won't happen if open weight models continue to kill their companies' profit margins. This is an obvious conflict of interest that anyone who cares to take their head out of the sand can see. Nuclear scientists didn't have this conflict of interest.

You are correct that attacking someone's motives is un-falsifiable. So is the claim that "ai is improving therefore it will keep improving therefore it will become dangerous sometime in the future.

No one can prove whether these employees had angels or demons in their hearts. What the skeptics are asking is much simpler: Make a believable argument for (1) the danger of AI and (2) that regulation can be effective.

Your entire argument about cynicism or unfalsifiableness is simply a distraction from having that discussion. And it's a discussion reasonable, well intentioned people can have. For example, if 1000 high school science teachers (who didn't have massive stock options in frontier labs) said 80% of our students could make a bioweapon 10x more lethal than an AR15 mass shooting with nothing more than ChatGPT and an amazon account, then that would be something reasonable people could discuss. On the other hand, 1000 employees conflicted by $Bs of options saying "trust us, this is dangerous" is not a claim that can be constructively critiqued.