Why would AI CEOs in bitter competition ask Big Government to step in?

​ AI CEOs are in bitter competition. Yet they are joining forces to call for government action that decides who builds, releases, and competes with advanced models? That is not altruism. That is strategy dressed up as altruism. They protect their monopoly by limiting access to open-weight models. They fear China’s low-cost efficiency and progress. They thwart talented, nimble startups they do not own—yet. Their “evidence,” including narratives like the Hugging Face hack, deserves hard scrutiny. It is accepted because it supports a convenient policy agenda. Risk and reward are two sides of the same coin. AI risk and AI incentive exist together. Two things can be true at once. These companies can believe the risk is serious AND use that as an excuse to back rules that protect their market position. China does not adopt meaningful guardrails unless they serve Chinese intetests. Challenging that regime is dangerous and Chinese AI researchers know it. China plays the long game. Technological advantage is part of a broader contest for power. A Western policy that buries open research, startups, and domestic innovation under regulation—while assuming China will voluntarily slow down—does not make us safer. It is unilateral self-restraint in a competition where the other side will not show restraint. Government should focus on concrete protections: AI-augmented terrorism, hacking, theft, sabotage, and attacks on critical infrastructure. Privacy protections against corporate and government surveillance. Worker protections, practical AI-use training, and transition support for people whose work is disrupted. Security standards and resilience for high-risk systems. Narrow, clear rules for genuinely dangerous uses—not a vague licensing and compliance regime only the largest companies can afford. Do not build a cozy government–private AI partnership where incumbent firms write rules that block their future competitors. We need safety, security, privacy, job protection, and innovation. Not nanny-state restraint of trade.