This looks like halfway through your comment you realised it is indeed a nefarious plot by the CEOs, reusing existing arguments to further their own goals.

> The AI risk arguments ... are 20-30 years old

Yeah so climate change is known to cause many excess deaths already now and we know pretty precisely what we have to do for decades, and we only do some bare minimum if anything at all. But now there is a huge PR offensive to do something about a 'risk' that until now caused zero deaths, is not certain to exist at all and is stoked not by concerned outsiders but by people certain to profit handsomely from heavy regulation of their industry. I'd say it's not opponents who need better arguments.