The biggest opponents of artificial intelligence are increasingly acting like its largest allies, as conservatives watch Congress barrel, yet again, toward regulatory capture.
The threat of AI, whether it is supposed mass job loss or the prospect of a modern company becoming Skynet, has become a major political issue. Calls for Congress to “do something” are growing louder by the day, with proposals ranging from mandatory testing and disclosure requirements to new legal duties for AI labs and even a ban on artificial superintelligence.
But set aside the apocalypse talk for a moment and imagine the far more likely future: AI transforms the economy, creates new industries, displaces some work and becomes a tool people learn to use, much as every major technology has before it. In that future, Congress and the advocates demanding sweeping rules for American AI companies are not protecting the public so much as constructing barriers to entry that will secure the place of Anthropic, OpenAI, and others at the top of tech company food chain.
Let’s begin by asking who, exactly, is calling for AI regulation, because the coalition is an odd one. Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and xAI CEO Elon Musk have all backed slowing the development of the most advanced AI models. Alongside them are politicians such as Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and California Rep. Ro Khanna, plus the usual collection of progressives and people whose first instinct, upon seeing anything new, is to build a federal agency around it.
The corporate side of that coalition deserves far more scrutiny than it is receiving. Amodei, Altman and Musk do not run small firms struggling to break into the market. They lead some of the companies already at the frontier of AI development. Amodei has called for third-party evaluators embedded within leading labs, coordinated industrywide standards and limits on the pace at which AI capabilities can advance; Altman and Musk have publicly endorsed his push. And what do those industry leaders have to gain from a government-enforced regulatory empire over AI? Literally everything.
Altman said the frontier needs to be “paced,” while Amodei has argued that companies should slow the rate at which they improve AI models. But, conveniently, the slowdown is not meant only for them. It is meant for everyone. Of course it is. These firms already have the capital, data centers, engineering talent, legal departments and political access needed to survive complicated compliance rules. If every competitor has to slow down, pay for outside audits and navigate a maze of federal approvals, the companies already on top cement their industry dominance.
As for the politicians, this is next-level stupid. The same people who spend their careers warning about the power of Big Tech CEOs are now flirting with the system that would manufacture the next generation of them. A regulatory regime that only the largest labs can afford will not restrain corporate power. It will turn today’s AI leaders into permanently protected incumbents, while the next potential competitor is buried beneath paperwork.
Why exactly are we letting fear waltz us into bad policy? I was not old enough to witness the political choices that helped create today’s Big Tech giants, but watching regulatory capture take shape in real time, and with near-bipartisan support, is quite a sight to behold.
There are legitimate reasons to worry about AI. But it is a remarkably ill-informed reaction to answer those fears by building an overarching government regime that protects the companies already in control and limits the very competitive pressure that could reduce their power, and keep them honest.
Competition, not a regulatory moat around OpenAI, Anthropic and xAI, is what gives consumers, entrepreneurs and the public a fighting chance.