I believe there is a bit of hype on both sides, with the labs operating from the mindset of "never let a good crisis go waste".
It is a crisis and the risk of A(G)I is real. But almost all this while in the history of automation, we have blamed implementation of automation when things go wrong. Instead of attributing morality, intent and so many other things that we do with LLMs.
Without having to go in to the philosophical validity of these concepts applied to AI, I feel it's much more useful to focus on the implementation of automation here as well - what risks were opened, how was the env hardened, what was the observability like - how was it being observed anyway, and more.
Done poorly, that can be catastrophic enough. But that sounds mundane. And does not help the hype.
> Or, if they were following their own founding principles
The mindset is "AGI will be built by someone. We care about safety, so better we do it."
Quite flawed in retrospect, because it leads to this ironic race dynamic:
Either slow down and leave the frontier to the "wreckless" players. Or contribute but increasingly undermine safety yourself to keep pace.
That's how we are in a situation where the very labs that work on AGI give P(doom) > 10%.