From the position of the present state of knowledge, some people don't want a ban/pause button to be pressed now, but they want the button to be there in case they want to press it in the future. I don't think saying someone "doesn't endorse an AI ban/pause" should by default mean they won't change their mind when the fabric of reality is on fire, or can't at all anticipate the possibility.
The disagreement is rather that they assign a low probability to extinction/disempowerment on the current trajectory, expect concrete and actionable signs of things going very wrong, and think that the button will still work if it's not pressed much earlier than that.
Coordination is distinct from options for coordination. Options can be useful even if you believe that the best outcome involves never exercising them. Submarines with nuclear warhead missiles hopefully aren't there to ease the world into a nuclear armageddon. People who expect good outcomes might say that an AI ban/pause is by default a catastrophe in the sense of opportunity cost, but there could be future circumstances that make it necessary, and so it's prudent to develop the option.
31leogao
obviously the glorious international pause treaty is a good idea, and i think people have always overestimated the cost of saying so publicly.