Nick Hutton

This is the "regulatory capture" phrase that is widely passed around. If a teen commits suicide, parents will sue ChatGPT/Claude, because there is no firm definition of what it means for an AI to be "safe". A slick lawyer will usually convince a jury that corporations are evil and need to pay for tragedy, regardless of the facts. Juries are emotional. Therefore, AI leaders want government to "impose" AI safety regulations on them. While such laws punish them if they don't meet the rules, it exonerates them when they can prove they met the safety regulations, forestalling lawsuits. The leaders of every large industry do this. This is not unique to AI. They'll accept even bad regulations as long as it provides regulatory certainty and protection from ad hoc lawsuits. This also suppresses a patchwork of state laws. The leaders know that, as the biggest companies in the industry, such laws won't hurt them much, but will hurt smaller competitors. Every new regulation increases costs that large companies can easily absorb but small challengers cannot. They want this even if anti-AI activists have too much influence and create non-optimal regulations. They benefit even if they don't achieve "regulatory capture". But, since they are the loudest voices in the room, they'll have the most influence, and likely get favorable regulations. The point is that "regulatory capture" isn't the goal, but is usually the effect. The reason the leading AI CEOs want regulation is because the leaders of all big industries want regulations.