This is always the first comment when someone in an industry talks about regulation but it doesn't change the fact that it's needed and they're essentially right regardless of what motivations they have.

Scott Galloway called it the stop-me-before-I-kill-grandma defence. (Paraphrasing.)

You made money making a thing. You continue to make the thing. You’re telling us how the thing will bring doom and gloom if not dealt with (conveniently implying it will change the world). And you want to staff the regulatory body you call for with the very butchers you’re castigating.

You've got it backwards. I bet OpenAI wants those regulations to be as restrictive as possible. They'll just negotiate an exception for themselves. With increased regulation comes an increased initial cost for competitors to get started in the space. They want to lock down their near monopoly as soon as they can.

I'd argue that any business advocating for regulation is largely motivated by its own pursuit of regulatory capture.

What established player doesn’t want to make it as hard as possible to compete with them?

Once you gain the lead position, it is in your interest to increase the barriers to entry as much as possible.

I mean, I guess there’s always that play: maybe Sam Altman is simply feigning enthusiasm for this to head off a burgeoning regulatory coup: how can he mobilize support against the regulations He doesn’t want? What would be a great way to galvanize support against the regulations? Maybe by doing exactly what he’s doing: by falling on his sword, and making himself seem like a monopolistic supporter of those?

Sacrificing his reputation for the greater good of open competition on AI? Well, that’s a truly noble move.

It’s a bit of a stretch, but maybe it’s very Washington I don’t know.

A more logical (economic) motivation may be: this news is taken as a threat, in effect creating a sense of scarcity around AI, which could be judged to provoke people into buying more of OpenAI's subscriptions, training, or whatever, to ensure access that, in light of such news, they may now feel is at risk.

So, the move is merely a red herring, a fabricated threat designed to provoke people to spend, not intended to actually create legislation.

Don't know which one of these is more likely if any: or maybe Sama is simply living his best life role playing as a super villain? I guess he's starting to remind me of Niander Wallace in Bladerunner 2049

The fearmongering and astroturfing is obvious.