You don't have to assume malice, he is a strong believer in liberalism so naturally he would argue whatever leads to less regulation. Even if he thought AI was

You don't have to assume malice, he is a strong believer in liberalism so naturally he would argue whatever leads to less regulation. Even if he thought AI was dangerous he would still believe that corporations are better suited to combat that threat than any government. Its similar to how the WSJ journalist would never ask him what he thinks about the larger effects of the "deindustrialization" of knowledge-based jobs caused by AI. Not because the journalist is malicious, its just the shared, subconscious ideology. People don't need a reason to protect capital interests, even poor people on the very bottom will protect it.