Debate on the existential threat of AI

Has anyone watched this debate on the existential threat of AI? [] Here is my summary of the main arguments in this debate, along with a few questions that were left unanswered. Max Tegmark: Max warns of AI's exponential growth and potential for harm, highlighting misaligned goals, malicious use, and human competition with AI as key risks. Yann LeCun: Yan asserts that while human-level AI is still far off, it can be made safe through objective-driven AI, and could usher in a new era of enlightenment. Yoshua Bengio: Joshua believes that superhuman AI could pose an existential risk due to its potential to outsmart humans and develop self-preservation goals. Melanie Mitchell: Melanie argues that fears of AI as an existential threat are more speculative than scientific and that such claims can mislead the public and policymakers. I'm glad that Yann LeCun made the argument that superintelligence is not supposed to be dumb or evil. As we've seen throughout human history, evil individuals are anything but intelligent! However, I'm disappointed that nobody on the con side asked Max Tegmark about the practical implementation of regulations and limitations. - How far should we go with regulation? - Should we restrict/arrest students, engineers, and scientists who work on open-source models? - How can we control and limit countries like China, Russia, Iran, etc.? Furthermore, how can we ensure that big players won't manipulate these regulations to eliminate smaller competitors, or even corrupt the government to monopolize access to AI technology?