"It is time to go beyond transparency to more serious and binding regulation of AI."[1]

Anthropic is calling for regulation. For example they endorsed CA SB-53 that even OpenAI and Google thought was too much: https://www.anthropic.com/news/anthropic-is-endorsing-sb-53

They have spoken publicly about how they want open models banned (they call them Chinese models).

They might not want this specific action, but they do want regulation on their own terms. That really is regulatory capture.

> Nobody is doing this intentionally. Have you not paid attention to how quickly idiot stuff gets found out

They don't think is is "idiot stuff" - they are doing it openly and shouting to everyone who will listen! Read Dario's latest essay[1]:

> Many policymakers are showing increased openness to taking action, and it's been encouraging to see our peers come around to the same positions we've been advocating for over the past few years.

[snip]

> Thus, in 2025, Anthropic supported transparency legislation, helping to pass SB 53 in California, RAISE in NY, SB 315 in Illinois (in early 2026), and advocating for a transparency standard at the federal level.

[snip]

> It is time to go beyond transparency to more serious and binding regulation of AI.

> I am grateful to see the Trump administration’s Executive Order move incrementally towards a greater role for government in AI, though Anthropic’s proposal recommends even further action.

> The government should have the power to block or deter deployment of the model if it is determined, in light of third-party assessment, to present unacceptable risks.

I'm not sure why you think they don't want to be "found out"!

> They have spoken publicly about how they want open models banned (they call them Chinese models).

Whenever I hear some octogenarian senator babble about the evils of distillation I assume Amodei (or maybe Altman) fed them the script, word for word.