One plausible explanation is that industry still thinks it’s likely to kill the bill, and they just didn’t feel like they needed to play their cards sooner.
But this still leaves me surprised– I would’ve expected that it’s in industry’s interest to kill the bill earlier in the process because:
It might be easier to kill earlier on because it hasn’t gained much traction/support
If you want to appear like you’re open to regulation (which seems to be the policy of major AI companies), you probably want to kill it in a relatively silent/invisible way. If you have to be very loud and public and you get to the point where there are a bunch of media articles about it, you lose some credibility/reputation/alliances (and indeed I do think industry has lost some of this “plausibility of good will” as a result of the SB1047 saga)
One plausible explanation is that industry still thinks it’s likely to kill the bill, and they just didn’t feel like they needed to play their cards sooner.
But this still leaves me surprised– I would’ve expected that it’s in industry’s interest to kill the bill earlier in the process because:
It might be easier to kill earlier on because it hasn’t gained much traction/support
If you want to appear like you’re open to regulation (which seems to be the policy of major AI companies), you probably want to kill it in a relatively silent/invisible way. If you have to be very loud and public and you get to the point where there are a bunch of media articles about it, you lose some credibility/reputation/alliances (and indeed I do think industry has lost some of this “plausibility of good will” as a result of the SB1047 saga)