Importantly locking away model checkpoints makes AI safety research, at best, exceptionally difficult or impossible. We already don't know all the training methods nor do we know the data used for the models. AI safety is absolutely contingent on works being __more__ open source, not less. But there's less profit in that for these companies (potentially more profit for the country as a whole though, as we see new businesses form and sectors develop, but this is more spread out and far harder to calculate the value of so let's ensure we recognize this as speculative).

We also need to be keenly aware that xrisk is not the major issue here. We do not need AGI to create massive amounts of harm, nor do we need AGI to create a post-scarce world (which the transition to can also generate massive harm if we don't do it carefully. Despite generating a post-scarce world -- or at least getting ever closer to that -- is, imo, one of the most important endeavors we can work on). Current ML systems can already do massive amounts of destruction, but so can a screwdriver.

My big fear is that AI will go the way of nuclear. A technology is not good or bad, it is like a coin with a value. You can spend that coin on something harmful or something beneficial, but the coin is just a coin at the end of the day. That's what regulation is supposed to be about, expenditure, not minting.