It's worth pointing out that practically speaking, the alternative to a sane regulatory regime isn't "no regulation." We are experiencing rapid improvements in capabilities, have multiple providers with differing levels of safe guards, and are at the point now where small things are starting to go wrong. The scope of AI capabilities are growing rapidly, and the scope of possible damage is going to grow with them. Think for a second about what happens when the first actually bad and "politically gripping" incident occurs? Not Hugging Face, but something that makes the average person really scared. This isn't about extinction, think a human initiated, AI-orchestrated cyberattack that sabotages one piece of infrastructure that results in at least one person dying. The reaction will be violent. Our political system doesn't work well at proactively handling purely theoretical problems, but reacts very fiercely and sometimes irrationally when something bad actually happens. The August 2001 CIA memo "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US" got little response, but buildings falling down changed the course of history. An industry whose wealth and power is widely resented, that resists even the most innocuous and common sense safeguards, and then causes a significant incident, will see a violent reaction. This will result in a regulatory regime designed in a moment of populist outrage by people with little understanding of what will help, whose primary goal will be crushing AI progress as an end in its own right.