IMO it's because they don't want to handle their rogue AI activity. They want regulation around AI where they will inevitably be the beneficiaries even if they are the initial target. They can then lobby regulation in their favor and make the barrier of entry to competitors impossible.

> They want regulation around AI

So, there is a regulatory framework for "safe-ai" that shields these companies from liability. This way, they can sell "safe-ai" to enterprises and if shit-hits-the-fan at the enterprise, sorry, this is certified "safe-ai" so, your bad. Shift blame. From an enterprise buyer's perspective they can say, hey, I bought "safe-ai" and so dont fire me when it "rm -rf"s the production database. Still, it beats me why they are painting their product in a negative light, and scaring their own enterprise customers. After this sort of marketing, any enterprise buyer would be scared to go anywhere near it

IMO its because they can't handle rogue activity.

In the cases that I have seen covered, the AI just paper clip maximized its way to success. It has no morality / larger motivational structure. It just kept token predicting its way to wards whatever goal it was tasked with.

Model versions which gave up were discarded, leaving the ones that get to success on long horizon tasks.

Just because its a computer program, doesn't mean they can actually make it not go rogue.

Sure you can add more telemetry, have better observation, but there is no fundamental barrier that can be implemented that ensures an AI won't go rogue.

It's two things:

1. Wanting a regulatory moat around their products as you said

2. Trying to keep the """AGI""" hype alive. Evil robot hackers is a plausible Al consequence of AGI

This