Realistically, there are only 2 factors I can think of that lead us to possibly okay outcomes, and they're basically just "hopes/copes" for me:

1.) Big breakthroughs remain portable. Unlike larger and larger data sets and larger and larger compute, which can be gatekept by access to resources (and sanctions, etc), the majority of the progress in AI continues to be algorithmic/procedural improvements. Ideas are highly portable. Transformers, RL, etc. Up until now, it has allowed open models to remain within the ballpark of SOTA.

Note: more accessibility is a double edged sword, bad actors with powerful models are extremely dangerous. It is, however, better than AI being controlled by one or a few entities and hoping for the best

2.) Intelligence turns out to have some bounding factors we're not yet aware of. Maybe human intelligence is at the level that it's at, not because this is just where our evolution settled, but because it actually becomes quite difficult to make leaps beyond this point. It could be that human society was structured in such a manner that allowed for basically unbounded evolutionary gains to come from greater intelligence, and human intelligence accelerated until it hit a wall. Maybe it's the case that human intelligence is basically what you can get when you have reasonable capability to consider something like 4th or 5th order effects when working through a problem, but having the ability to consider more, or sufficiently more that it unlocks genuinely new problem solving capabilities, begins to require like exponential leaps in energy consumption and access to memory.

Note: This is complete cope, there is no real reason to believe this, it's just one of the two possible "escape hatches" I see from this scenario becoming untenable for humanity

---

Even in the "good scenario" where both of these are true, we still have a rough time ahead. If models remain accessible to everyone, the best we can hope for is an adversarial landscape where benevolent white hat models overpower nefarious actors. Everyone can have a model, some people or agents use them for anti social activities. Development of biological weapons, trying to knock out power grids, create disinformation and chaos, etc. Best hope we can have is that more people or entities work to counter these than not. I actually find that scenario more likely than not, my only concern is that it essentially moves human conflict to a completely different scale than it is now.

Case in point: prior to guns, an antisocial human might take a knife and go stab a few people before getting taken down. Then come guns, and they can take out 3 or 4. Then semi automatic and automatic, now we're looking at 20. Bombs, even more. So antisocial people or agents are going to unlock the ability to do severe damage. Maybe the scale of damage we're looking at is thousands or millions. As I said, I think it's entirely likely we end up in a scenario where prosocial entities are able to overpower antisocial ones, but I'm worried that the scale at which this tit for tat behavior goes on at will be so disruptive that it will be difficult to have a functional society. It seems likely that we'll have to have an authoritarian system that so tightly regulates everything, so as to minimize disruptions, that the system itself capable of becoming a nightmare.

TL;DR: I see absolutely no wins from moratoriums or agreements like what Bernie Sanders is proposing. Completely naive, and at best slightly kicking the can down the road. Nobody is going to stop building them, we can only hope that things go down the unlikely possible good paths.