> More perfect than simply not making mistakes and allowing your competitors to make mistakes (or to, apparently, fake mistakes in their own attempt to get regulated)?

I don't think any of them are in a position to allow or not allow their competitors to make mistakes.

The point that you're not getting here is that the advantage comes from actually being seen to make mistakes, and then signalling contrition and commitment to rectify them. That persuades people of both the need for regulation, and their own subsequent responsibility (which implies trustworthiness to participate in the regulation).

> Regulators reading OpenAI's 99th mea culpa: "Ah yes, well I bet they've figured it out this time! We should regulate everyone else!"

Again you're not getting it. The drive isn't to "regulate everyone else", it's to regulate everyone, period. The whole point of regulatory capture is being able to (a) use regulatory compliance as a competitive advantage, and (b) influence the regulatory regime in your favor -- you want to be a target of regulation just as much as your competitors in order to achieve that.

Messaging that the whole industry needs to be regulated, but that you're ready and willing to work with the regime, is exactly how you do regulatory capture. Demonstrating that you are capable of completely mitigating risk on your own without any intervention is an argument against regulation from the outset.