I understand this reaction but I think the situation is a bit more complex than what Jay says. At the time OpenAI supported 315, it was not a done deal - it was genuinely costly for them to do so (e.g. many other companies were not in support at that time) and their support helped it get across the finish line. But I do think that they are a large organization, and that it is easy for the situation to regress to the mean and back to just reflexively opposing regulation with the sorts of stock arguments that companies have made for many years. I think OpenAI can and does make the decision to do good prosocial things (as when they supported 315 or endorsed the pacing the frontier letter)! I'm also well aware they can also do bad things (like when they subpoenaed me and asked for all my communications on sb 53 lol). The bad things can happen for a mix of intentional reasons and sloppy/autopilot reasons. To be clear, i'm not saying that because OpenAI supported SB 315 that they now need to support every other piece of regulation or they are being a hypocrite (though I do think this MA bill is a good bill and I hope OAI does ultimately support it!). But I am saying that this moment demands far more than typical gov affairs autopilot reactions, and these comments on MA look far more like what I would expect from a typical corporate lobbyist than an organization with a mission of ensuring that AGI benefits all of humanity. Others are welcome to be more cynical about their behavior, and I don't begrudge them for it (and there is plenty to point to in support of that idea), but I know there are plenty of folks within OAI (including senior folks) who want to see their organization meet the moment.