MIRIs argument, which I agree with for once, is that a safe goal can have dangerous sub goals.

The tool AI proponents argument, as I understand it, is that a system that defaults to doing nothing is safer.

I think MIRI types are persistently mishearing that, because they have an entirely different set of presuppositions....that safety is all-or-nothing, not a series of mitigations. That safety is not a matter of engineering, but mathematical proof....not that you can prove anything behind the point where the uncertainty within the system is less than the uncertainty about the system.