We elect the people with the nukes (in theory). Don't remember electing OpenAI.

Dito for the sewage/water system or other critical infrastructure.

Not saying OpenAI needs to be elected or not, just expanding on what (I think) they meant.

This is the same argument people use against the 2nd amendment, but it fails for similar reasons here.

If we accept that the public having access to GPT-4 has the same level of risk as the public having access to nukes would than I'd argue that we should treat GPT-4 the same way as nukes and restrict access to only the military. I don't think that's the case here though and that since the risks are very different, we should be fine with not treating them the same.

The counter for nukes is nobody should have nukes. Anybody trying to build nuclear weapons should be stopped from doing so, because they're obviously one of the most catastrophically dangerous things ever.

At least with ai you can cut the power, for now anyway.

Nonproliferation is practical with nuclear weapons.

With something that can be so trivially copied as a LLM that isn't possible.

So in this scenario, one could argue that ensuring equitable distribution of this potentially dangerous technology at least levels the playing field.

It does. Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction

I think it's okay to treat different situations differently, but if someone were able to make the case that letting the public have access to GPT-4 was as risky as handing the public all of our nuclear secrets I'd be forced to say we should classify GPT-4 too. Thankfully I don't think that's the case.