This sounds like the gun debate in a different dress. Something being dangerous doesn't make it inherently harmful.

If I threw you into a lion cage, you would be a lot safer with a gun.

If I threw 10 people in a lion cage, some of which cannot be trusted, they would probably be most safe if only the most moral and trustworthy person had a gun, rather than everyone. But how do you know who is trustworthy and moral? What if two untrustworthy people obtained a gun some other way? Maybe it's better if everyone had a gun? Which side of the fence one falls on hinges on how far ones' trust of others, authority, and the system goes.

There's no obvious right or wrong answer here.

Personally I wouldn't want an exclusive club of private individuals with access to "dangerous" LLMs consisting mainly of the likes of Elon, Dario and Sam fucking Altman, but that's just me.

Background check the people prior to handing the firearms to the caged folk.