They (the moderate AI risk-of-slavery-or-extermination camp, that sees safety as a critical issue but the promise of AI benefit to humanity if well-aligned as significant enough that working for aligned AI is worthwhile instead of just adopting an AI-ban and bombing non-compliant datacenters) have always been of the opinion that open source is less safe than in the hands of a benevolent dictator with AI safety in mind, which is why their best case scenario was them being the benevolent dictatory gatekeeping AI.
OTOH, its quite possible that they would see having a single entity purely interest in private gain being likely to acquire a commanding lead as even a greater risk than having current SotA public (really, its hard for me to see any other possibility consistent with their public views other than seeing that threat as a reason to join the extremist Yudkowski camp in anti-AI crusade mode.)