The difference is that reducing emissions just 10% is still better than 0% while stopping 90% from doing AI advancements is not better than 0% (it might actually be worse).
I would also claim that global restriction is not possible and even in the unlikely scenario that we're able to restrict 90% of world, we're still not better off than if we did nothing.
Still a different argument than one that offhand dismissed the very idea of global restriction at any level. Nothing you’re saying is found anywhere in the original comment.
You have better uses of your time than retroactively rewriting others’ words to be less stupid so you can “refute” valid critiques of their original versions.
The difference is that reducing emissions just 10% is still better than 0% while stopping 90% from doing AI advancements is not better than 0% (it might actually be worse).