In the first moments of realization, one would more likely be scared into silence for some time. Upon gaining their bearings , they'd probably be drawn into even more silence and careful minded reflections on the implications and assessment on how to more publicly move forward. Thanks for the parallel framing in yet another powerful research field gone35.
As it stands, you're not giving me any incentive to "strongly reconsider" my position.
After reading it for two minutes, it's not obvious how to take a productive insight about artificial intelligence from what seems to be an article about mutations. I offered my sincere first thought about what you might have meant and asked for further clarification, and you shot that down without any further clarification.
Now after I've twice asked you for clarification and you haven't provided it, you're telling me you're wasting your time. Do you see how this is unhelpful? It's borderline Kafkaesque.
Very briefly though, because it's way easier to leak code than to obtain source material and tools to weaponize a deadly virus.
True, but perhaps AGI would require substantial, non-trivial supercomputing resources as well...
As such, for those quick to publish or say they would publish and share details, one is able to quickly ascertain the possible strength of what they have discovered or feel they have the possibility of discovering. That being said, it's interesting that several proponents of 'everyone share what they find' have moved to more maturely state that 'restrictions may of apply'.. Sensibly signaling that they indeed wouldn't reveal certain details upon discovering their true nature and capability for obvious reasons (a danger to society to allow such power/capability to be detailed and therefore used in negative ways).
Human history has myriad examples of powerful technology being misused and abused. The current age of disinformation is one of our more modern ones. The way in which social media has been weaponized is yet another. Weak AI has already been used for destructive means and in manipulative manners for profit. A good deal of unsafe end products which utilize Weak AI are already fielded. The fielding of which made possibly by deep pockets manipulating policy makers and regulation.
A sensible mind capable of producing Strong AI will have observed and digested these clearly visible truths and it would move them to restrict access and publications of their works. Doing otherwise would highlight a level of ignorance, immaturity, and admission of truth when it comes to grasping the current state of humanity. It is this which would preclude one from grasping the nature and foundations of strongAI in the first place.
[Nature's lockout/safety mechanism for such a stage in Human development/capability]
Are you sure? I'd publish technical research details about strong AI. I'd probably even open source one with the papers. I think I'm in my right mind; I guess that depends on definition, doesn't it?