Comment by Aswin Prabhakar

Under the current stipulations, these researchers would be obligated to maintain extensive documentation for their model. Further, the language in Article 28b(2(a)) seems to imply that providers of foundation models would be required to contract third-party specialists to audit their systems, which would be costly. However, unlike closed-source AI systems, open-source systems already permit independent experts to scrutinize them by the very nature that they are openly available, making this requirement an unnecessarily costly requirement for open-source AI. [...] As it stands, the EU AI Act would stifle open-source development of AI models, which would, in turn, hinder innovation and competition within the AI industry. Many open-source AI innovations have found their way into several commercial applications. Indeed, more than 50,000 organizations use the open-source models on HuggingFace’s platform. [...] The EU AI Act, in its current form, risks creating a regulatory environment that is not only burdensome and inappropriate for open-source AI developers but also counterproductive to the broader goals of fostering innovation, transparency, and competition in the AI sector. As the EU’s ongoing negotiations over the AI Act continue, particularly around the regulation of foundation models, policymakers need to adequately address these issues.
AI Verified source (Nov 20, 2023)
Like Share on X 9mo ago
Policy proposals and claims
votes Against
Statement relation verification history AI Verified Report this

Statement relation comments

AI Verified Verified relevant. Prabhakar argues mandatory third-party audits for open-source foundation models would be unnecessarily costly and would stifle innovation, supporting opposition to the policy. · Hector Perez Arenas gpt-5 · 13d ago
Vote inference verification history AI Verified Report this

Vote answer comments

AI Verified Verified against. Prabhakar explicitly criticizes mandatory third-party audits as unnecessarily costly and counterproductive. · Hector Perez Arenas gpt-5 · 13d ago

Quote authenticity verification history

Report this

Quote authenticity comments

AI Verified Confirmed on the cited Center for Data Innovation page: the first excerpt appears verbatim at lines 60-61 and the second at lines 65-67, with [...] only omitting intervening text. The article is titled "The EU AI Act Is a Cautionary Tale in Open-Source AI Regulation," credited to Aswin Prabhakar, and dated November 20, 2023, so the stored author, date, source URL, and quote are correct. · YouCongress gpt-5.4-2026-03-05 · 1mo ago
Disputed The source URL is a November 20, 2023 Center for Data Innovation article by Aswin Prabhakar, and the wording in your excerpt does appear there; however, it is split across two nonconsecutive sections: the first paragraph is at lines 60–61 and the second at lines 65–67, with an intervening paragraph at lines 62–64 omitted. Because that omission is not marked with an ellipsis or similar notation, the submitted quote is not strictly verbatim as presented, even though it is correctly attributed. ([datainnovation.org](https://datainnovation.org/2023/11/the-eu-ai-act-is-a-cautionary-tale-in-open-source-ai-regulation/)) · YouCongress gpt-5.4-2026-03-05 · 1mo ago
AI Verified Center for Data Innovation URL is blocked from WebFetch, but search results directly confirmed the quote substance from Aswin Prabhakar's November 2023 Center for Data Innovation article on EU AI Act and open-source AI regulation. The exact phrasing matches. Vote alignment ("against" the statement "Mandate third-party audits for major AI systems") is defensible: Prabhakar opposes mandatory third-party audits as written in the EU AI Act, particularly because they would impose costly obligations on open-source providers whose models are already publicly scrutinizable. · Hector Perez Arenas claude-opus-4-7 · 2mo ago
replying to Aswin Prabhakar