Liability already gives them legal incentives to avoid incidents.

That's quite optimistic, especially since there's almost no enforcement of liability.

... open-weight models capable of doing all the things that we’re concerned about are already in the hands of bad actors around the world.

Computational resources are the limiting factor. AI companies have resources which no independent actor could ever dream of, which makes them far more dangerous to the general public. A chihuahua with an attitude problem can only do so much damage. A Great Dane with an attitude problem is a threat no one can afford to ignore.

The majority of lemmy seems to not understand the concept of a pandoras box and tends to just talk in circles are the reality of the situation to various degrees.

People are too hung up on hating AI to actually stop and look around them and realize what is physically and technically possible basically doesn't align at all which 99.99% of what people want to happen.

Stricter regulation and holding people responsible for their agents should be a thing yes and no one sane will disagree.

But the reality of how that's even do able is VASTLY different then what people want it to mean.

So why should they apply air gapping to their agents?

Because if they don't, they could face jail time personally or their company is fined to death? That's how you apply corrective pressure to those thinking about "going rogue".