Additionally, there at different doom scenarios (thin client scenario) - it's possible that AIs centralized but sufficiently entrenched in society, can't be shut down without considerable harm.
But if we don't think about any of this, hearing an expert say "we need a kill switch" sure makes our current AI seem super powerful and exciting, doesn't it?
My comment didn't mention kill switches at all - I've presented plausible conditions for a loss of control scenario, so I'm not sure you're actually following the conversation.
Having said that, it seems that you haven't read the (definitely poor) article, either.
"Kill switch" as a design principle, that is, having protocols/implementations for emergencies, is something that companies are already implementing (at least, on paper) - on a interview I've watched for example, S.Altman talked about having them at OpenAI.
The article simply mentions that companies should be legally required to have such protocol(s). This is a good thing, as companies would have scrutiny and would (in principle) have to put serious effort.
I'm not sure you're the one following the conversation.