Here's as couple excerpts, but you should just read the article.
>As disruptions from AI become more tangible and calls for greater scrutiny of big tech companies grows louder, the industry appears to be both recognizing the widespread discontent and **looking for ways to reframe the debate.**

***

>Still, the company’s marketing push is not only about burnishing its image. **In developing thinktanks and research institutes, while at the same time spending millions on lobbying efforts, some experts also see AI firms attempting to undercut independent efforts to regulate the industry**.
>
>“The [OpenAI](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/openai) paper has a lot of the sounds of wanting more regulatory oversight,” said Sarah Myers West, co-executive director at the non-profit AI Now Institute, which advocates for more public accountability over the AI industry. “But then when you look under the hood, they have lobbied very successfully for an administration that has taken a very aggressive deregulatory stance toward AI.”

***

> ## PR by policy proposal: a four-day workweek and a public wealth fund
>OpenAI’s paper marks a shift in tone that appears to reflect worries within the company around how its technology is being publicly received. Rather than talk about how workers can adapt to the new technology to avoid falling out of the labor market, the document talks about “building a resilient society” and asks policymakers to create guardrails on safe AI.  
  >
>The policy ideas include headline-generating proposals such as a four-day work week and the creation of a “public wealth fund” that would return profits directly to citizens – a spin on the tech industry hobbyhorse of universal basic income.  
  >
>The paper stresses the proposals shouldn’t be considered as firm answers on how to address AI’s impact on society, but rather “a starting point for a broader conversation about how to ensure that AI benefits everyone”. [...]

***

>Critics of the paper characterize the arguments more of a public relations ploy than an actual policy document. And they argue, at its crux, it shifts responsibility away from the company and towards the public and lawmakers. Much of the paper describes OpenAI’s vision of an AI-dominated world as something of a foregone conclusion. While presenting lofty goals for government and society, OpenAI is framing its technology as an inevitable force to be contended with rather than a product that can be regulated both internally and through legislation, experts argue.
>
>“What they’ve done very cannily here is sort of outline a set of social welfare goals while abdicating any responsibility or any meaningful commitment of resources toward those goals,” Myers West said.
>
>In fact, critics argue, while the company is advocating for lawmakers and the public to take up responsibility, it is lobbying hard behind closed doors for more lax regulations and try to block state regulation that rein them in.
>
>“If we wait around for Congress to act, then these companies will just be able to grow unregulated,” said Caitriona Fitzgerald, deputy director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center. “Which is, of course, what they want.”

***
> ## An intensifying AI lobby
>OpenAI spent nearly $3m on lobbying in 2025. The company’s president, Greg Brockman, [co-founded a pro-AI Super Pac](https://www.cnbc.com/2026/01/30/ai-industry-super-pac-raises-campaign-money.html) that raised more than $125m last year. The Pac [has already run ads](https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2026/03/06/alex-bores-ai-leading-the-future-anthropic-00797055) in New York against congressional candidate Alex Bores, who is in favor of AI regulation. The company is backing a bill in Illinois that would shield AI firms from liability in cases where an AI model causes serious societal harms such as creating a chemical weapon or causing mass death, [Wired reported](https://www.wired.com/story/openai-backs-bill-exempt-ai-firms-model-harm-lawsuits/) last week.
>Lack of awareness at the state government level around the still-nascent technology has provided the AI industry an opening to influence how regulation may look, according to Fitzgerald.
>
>“They’re taking advantage, essentially, of the fact that these folks have short sessions and no staff, to convince them that any regulation of AI will stifle innovation,” Fitzgerald said.
>
>OpenAI is not alone in its lobbying effort. Rival Anthropic has poured more than $3m into its own lobbying efforts and backed a different Super Pac, one with a different set of goals more welcoming of regulation.
>Despite Anthropic’s recent fight with the Department of Defense over red lines on military use of its models, the AI industry also remains closely aligned overall with Donald Trump’s White House, and the administration continues to act in its interest. [...]

***

> ## A public relations problem
>The building out of thinktanks, public relations pushes and increases in lobbying all come as the AI industry grapples with a pervasive image problem in its home country and is already becoming a focus of political campaigns during upcoming midterm elections.
>
>Polls have shown a deep and growing distrust among the public towards AI, not just in regards to its potential effects on labor but also as a societal force. A Pew Research Center survey released last September found that only 16% of Americans believe that AI will help people think more creatively, while only 5% of Americans believe it will help people better form meaningful relationships with one another. An NBC News poll last month additionally found that only 26% of voters had a favorable opinion of AI and that the technology’s net negative rating was 2 percentage points below US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). [...]

(p.s. PR is the most despicable profession)

AI companies know they have an image problem. Will funding policy papers and thinktanks dig them out?