I agree with Alex that the standard model of regulatory capture does not apply here, but I think he neglects the best model we have.  From my recent Free Press piece:

Recently I have been reading my review copy of Kevin Roose’s excellent forthcoming book The AGI Chronicles: The Inside Story of the Race to Create an Artificial Superintelligence. A major theme of the book—I would say the major theme—is how strong and competitive the rivalries have been between Dario, Altman, and Musk. Each believes that the others cannot be trusted to gain super-powerful AI capabilities.

Thus, when you observe these individuals and their companies jockeying for position and preeminence, it is too cynical to think it is just about the money (each of them already has plenty). The actions of each are rooted in the sincere belief that their own company would best serve the world by winning the race toward very powerful AI.

So when these CEOs plead altruism, you should actually believe them, even though obvious selfish motives also happen to align with their plans. One can reasonably argue about who ought to win the race, but I favor the outcome where all of them, including Meta and Google, roughly tie for first place, and the market remains highly competitive.

So they are selfish in a sense, but along the metric of power, where they perceive (correctly or not) “selfish and altruistic” to be quite closely correlated.  Note I am using the word “power” in a general capabilities sense, you do not have to believe they intend evil coercive exercise in this context.  Furthermore, it is not mainly about “capturing the regulator,” but rather winning in the market and then having an immense ability to achieve ends before the others do.  So yes they are sincerely worried about a host of safety issues, but they are all the more sincerely worried about not being the ones to win the race. To the extent we wish to cite those CEOs as authorities, “who gets it is the most important thing of all” would be the takeaway lesson.

Do note that for all the talk of pause, the race to invest in compute is continuing apace and even intensifying.  That is the real variable to watch.  If a theory does not explain observed behavior toward compute, which of course costs real dollars, the theory is failing to explain what is going on.

Standard competition!  I do not flip out about this.  But obviously there are some world views where you might view these (and other) actors as evil, and furthermore think they can act without much constraint, and so on.  Those are not my world views.  I see a lot of competition and a lot of ego, and then I think of Adam Smith.  Standard stuff, just at much higher stakes than usual.