> These models do have the cyber offensive capabilities claimed.

People use this argument against every new technology. We need to license these new printing presses or subversive elements will use them to publish seditious literature. We need to ban strong encryption or the government won't have invisible warrantless access to everyone's private messages, think of the children. 3D printers can be used to make gun parts -- as can a variety of ordinary tools people commonly have at home, but never mind that bit.

> The sad truth is that a lot of people are not going to believe it until something happens and people die. Successfully preventing that from happening will be seen as evidence that the prevention wasn’t needed.

A 12 oz bottle of water is too dangerous a technology for ordinary people to have on an airplane. Four 3 oz bottles and an empty 12 oz bottle to pour them into after passing through security is totally fine though, naturally. And we need to keep this up forever, or don't you remember 9/11?

The issue here is not that it's impossible for 12 oz of unknown liquid to damage an airplane.

> These models do have the cyber offensive capabilities claimed.

So? That's like saying "these guns do have the bullet shooting capabilities claimed".

I want all of those cyberwarfare capabilities for myself, precisely so I can defend myself from the onslaught that's coming whether they regulate it or not. This "lol only a select few ultratrusted gigacorporations get access" thing is absolute nonsense.

It's a front for regulatory capture, it's the means for pulling up the latter behind them, for ushering in the technofeudalism that will put us all in the permanent underclass. I simply refuse to accept any of it. If people die that's the price of freedom.

> We’re more protected by limited access to lab equipment and reagents than by difficulty.

As it should be.