That's the majority of people though, if you really think that I assume you wouldn't have a problem with needing to be licenced to have this kind of access, right?
I think they can design it to minimize misinformation or at least blind trust.
There's no way to design it to minimise misinformation, the "ground truth" problem of LLM alignment is still unsolved.
The only system we currently have to allow people to verify they know what they are doing is through licencing: you go to training, you are tested that you understand the training, and you are allowed to do the dangerous thing. Are you ok with needing this to be able to access a potentially dangerous tool for the untrained?
If you want working regulation for this, it will need to focus on warnings and damage mitigation, not denying access.
If what you're suggesting is a license that would cost money and/or a non-trivial amount of time to obtain, it's a nonstarter. That's how you create an unregulated black market and cause more harm than leaving the situation alone would have. See: the wars on drugs, prostitutes, and alcohol.
Did you previously write this exact comment before?
But I don’t know if I should be denied access because of those people.