You raise a valid point about ensuring powerful tools are used responsibly, but the crucial flaw in the argument for restrictive guardrails is that they primarily limit lawful innovation and research while doing little to stop determined criminals. Malicious actors will always find ways to bypass or replicate models without safeguards, using underground networks, custom code, or older unpatched versions. Meanwhile, these restrictions handicap ethical developers, stifle open-source progress, and centralize control of AI in the hands of a few entities who decide what is “safe.” Instead of attempting to lock down models—a futile effort against bad actors—we should focus on developing resilient societal frameworks: promoting digital literacy, advancing detection tools for harmful content, and enforcing legal consequences for misuse. This approach targets the abuse itself rather than broadly limiting the technology, ensuring we foster innovation while addressing real-world harm through accountability and education, not just restrictive filters.
Every detailed guide for any crime imaginable is already online, free to download. We don't ban books or libraries because of that. Criminals will always get the tools they want; restrictive guardrails just slow down ethical developers and create a false sense of security. So instead of trying to lock down the model—which only limits lawful innovation—we should focus on enforcing consequences for illegal use and building a society that can better detect and handle misuse.
