Perhaps but I think technophiles are much less likely to commit serious crimes in furtherance of their preferences.

Many doomers believe that AI is likely to kill everyone ("prove fatal to humanity" to quote your HN bio), maybe even destroy the universe. Under some doomer philosophy any crime-- up to and including mass murder with nuclear weapons as advocated by some of the leading doomer figures-- would be justifiable if it were effective to prevent such dire outcomes.

There are of course technophiles who believe restricting AI will result in preventable deaths (e.g. from delaying lifesaving technological innovations) or as a result of abuses arising consolidating power onto authoritarian entities who are permitted full use of AI-- and I suppose I'd count myself among both those classes.

But most people don't view causing a death and failing to prevent a death as morally equivalent. There is also another asymmetry: Doomer philosophy requires stopping other people, while a pro innovation path can be pursued on your own, simply taking care to avoid being stopped by others. The former requires espionage/sabotage, assuming that plain persuasion is unsuccessful, while the latter benefits more from staying away from anything that could bring unwelcome attention.

This also has relevance to the term "cult" -- there are a lot of pro-innovation people out there but there isn't much organization to it, because there doesn't need to be. Trying to use force to stop people against their will requires organizing people to impose upon others. And doing useful stuff is its own reward and doesn't require brainwashing to believe big-brained-brainfarts like "solving problems and doing useful stuff is actually bad".

Of course, all my blather would go out the window if we were talking about say-- exfiltrating their model weights, or the design of their inference chip as these would be things that would be useful for increasing access to AI rather than limiting it.