Their strongest case:

• The dangers and fears aren’t hypothetical, and they usually don’t impact those who are making the rules. You never signed terms with the company whose model generated a fake image of you.
• Some mistakes don’t have an undo. Inherent risks deserve considered caution.
• We already do this with bridges, drugs, and aircraft, and nobody calls it tyranny.
• Freedom isn’t just the absence of rules — it needs certain conditions to actually function. This is what philosophers call positive libertY And if you can’t tell what’s real, your choices aren’t free either.
• You can’t check the work of a company that won’t show it. Some labs let anyone download their models and look inside. Others only let you knock on the door.

The strongest case against it:

• Every safety rule is written by someone. Ask who, and what else they wanted.
• The filter that blocks a bioweapons question also blocks the nurse, the novelist, and the person researching their own diagnosis.
• Safety rules cost money. Big companies can afford them. Startups and university labs can’t.
• Watch who asks to be regulated. Rules are cheaper for the company that helped write them.
• “For your own protection” has a long and ugly rap sheet.