We can't find the internet
Attempting to reconnect
Something went wrong!
Hang in there while we get back on track
Comment by Sophie Kim
Author of The Counterfactual, publishing policy analysis on AI safety and biosecurity.
For closed-weight models, [misuse] risk is at least partially manageable. Input-output classifiers and safety fine-tuning can intercept most non-sophisticated actors before they get actionable guidance. [...] Open-weight models have no such layer. Once weights are downloaded, they can be run locally with no oversight and no logging, safety fine-tuning can be stripped with minimal technical effort, and the model can be fine-tuned on domain-specific data to become dramatically more capable in exactly the areas we’d most want to restrict. There is no API to monitor, no company to refuse the request, and no recourse once the weights are out.AI Verified (Apr 11, 2026)
Policy proposals and claims
votes For
Statement relation comments
AI Verified
Kim directly compares open- and closed-weight misuse controls and argues open weights lack enforceable safeguards.
·
Hector Perez Arenas
gpt-5.4
· 19d ago
Vote answer comments
AI Verified
Kim explicitly argues open weights lack the controllable safety layers of closed models, matching ‘for’ greater danger.
·
Hector Perez Arenas
gpt-5.4
· 19d ago
Quote authenticity verification history
Report thisQuote authenticity comments
AI Verified
Sophie Kim’s Apr. 11 Substack contains the quoted closed/open-weight comparison verbatim; omissions are marked.
·
Hector Perez Arenas
gpt-5.4
· 19d ago
replying to Sophie Kim