Jensen Huang wants to sell more hardware, he doesn't care whether it's Anthropic, OpenAI, or some Chinese company that wins. So he has a vested interest in AI being perceived positively so that the construction of datacenter continues unopposed.

OpenAI and Anthropic have completely different motives, they're in a zero-sum game with each other and with cheap Chinese models. Regulatory capture that results in artificial barriers of entry is their best bet at healthy profit margins even if it comes at the cost of less overall AI buildout.

It's not like "the AI industry" is a single entity with a single purpose, these are different companies with different objectives.

Edit: Google pretty much spells out the problem that AI labs are faced with in the leaked "We have no moat" memo[1]:

> People will not pay for a restricted model when free, unrestricted alternatives are comparable in quality. We should consider where our value add really is.

And

> All this talk of open source can feel unfair given OpenAI’s current closed policy. Why do we have to share, if they won’t? But the fact of the matter is, we are already sharing everything with them in the form of the steady flow of poached senior researchers. Until we stem that tide, secrecy is a moot point.

> And in the end, OpenAI doesn’t matter. They are making the same mistakes we are in their posture relative to open source, and their ability to maintain an edge is necessarily in question. Open source alternatives can and will eventually eclipse them unless they change their stance. In this respect, at least, we can make the first move.

[1] https://newsletter.semianalysis.com/p/google-we-have-no-moat...