On a very good day, as many as three of those might simultaneously not be bad actors.
They aren't bad actors whose access to AI technology is likely to be meaningfully impacted by regulation (but, for certain of the non-US ones, that hasn't stopped the US from trying before), but that's a different issue.
Seriously? You don't think China, Iran, and North Korea are bad actors? What planet are you on?
But I don't see China or North Korea firing nukes or even blowing up western buildings. They are limited by the threat of response.
A rogue wacko in his basement can make Kim Jong Un look like Theodore Roosevelt.
Examples:
In the Iran Hostage Crisis you had a constrained actor (Iranian government) making somewhat rational choices to use hostage taking as a negotiation tactic.
In the Oklahoma City Bombing, you had unconstrained actors (Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols) blowing up a building with a vehicle borne improvised explosive device for personal reasons.
The wrong hands will have the same access to whatever "superpowers" AI gives regardless of what regulations are or are not put in place. Regulations can't and won't stop potential bad actors with state-level resources, like China, from using any technology they decide they want to use. So trying to regulate on that basis is a fool's errand.
The real question is, what will put the good actors in a better position to fight the bad actors if it ever comes to that: a big tech monopoly or decentralized open source anarchy? The answer should be obvious. No monopoly is going to out-innovate decentralized open source.
> I'm not sure how easy it will be to stop bad actors since barriers to entry are exponentially lower to developing a malicious AI tool than, say, developing a nuke.
Since some bad actors already have nukes, the answer to this should be obvious too: it's what I said above about the wrong hands getting access to technology.