Confusing pausing frontier models facing the public with AI research in general is a huge problem

As we can see with the recently posted article in the Atlantic about pausing AI even at the risk of delaying cancer treatment, I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding between frontier models and AI in general in the general public. You could argue for example, that the progress of releasing frontier models to the public should be slowed down due to a large number of issues. However, at the same time you could argue that AI labs should continue to press forward on specific AI projects that actually matter, like Alphafold and cancer detection. Physical AI for dangerous jobs , exoskeletons etc. I remember reading about one researcher who was working on AI biomedical problems who was transferred to work on a frontier model and how disappointed they were. The issue seems to be partly a result of a Western obsession with AGI which results from SciFi culture mainly. Why would we even want to limit the potential of AI by comparison to human abilities? Who cares? I read that countries like China don't have this obsession and push ahead with narrow AI projects and their population has a MUCH higher sentiment towards AI. The main problem seems to be that generative AI does not have a clear business model. AI companies need profitable business to be able to develop the capacity and infrastructure needed. I don't see how companies like OpenAI are ever going to achieve this. They seem to be trying the freemium model and trying to gain traction so users get hooked. A generic software strategy. In short, pausing consumer facing frontier products to improve safety and inequality issues, but working on more meaningful specialized products for coding, biomedical, etc. that actually move the needle is an option. Anthropic didn't pause development because of the fable political problem. Like most issues I don't see it as AI or no AI. The key question is what type of AI for what purpose and why?