Amodei states that the public should have a say in what AI should be utilized for, but he does not dive into all of what that entails. Rather, he focuses on finances and national security. While they could be considered incredibly important, his interests are not entirely equivalent to that of average citizens. From A Common Good standpoint, the public should be the first to decide AI's limitations. What aspects of it do they want to be able to touch their life? Should Generative AI be accessible to the general population? Should AI be allowed to scrape the internet for information without compensating or letting those who own that information know? Should AI be used in science and medicine? What about data centers and the environmental threats they often pose? There are many questions, and many different uses for AI, some of which could benefit society more than others. These AI companies are making decisions that involve society as a whole without their consent. While Amodei's plan does benefit people by forming regulations on pacing and controlling the reach of AI, it still does not address a multitude of concerns.

From a Utilitarian lens, Amodei's arguement is solid. Bioterrorist attacks are real concerns that have major consequences. He is approaching the argument of pacing AI from a reasonable standpoint by measuring the greatest harms to humanity as a whole. It focuses on what could help the majority of people in terms of physical safety and economics. It doesn't delve into what exactly society wants or what they value, as I discussed while looking at it through a Common Goods lens, but rather what would benefit the most people.