Comment by Richard Blumenthal

On the issue of open source, you each raised the security and safety risk of AI models that are open source or are leaked to the public, the danger. There are some advantages to having open source, as well. It's a complicated issue. I appreciate that open source can be an extraordinary resource. But even in the short time that we've had some AI tools and they've been available, they have been abused. For example, I'm aware that a group of people took Stable Diffusion and created a version for the express purpose of creating nonconsensual sexual material. So, on the one hand, access to AI data is a good thing for research, but on the other hand, the same open models can create risks, just because they are open. And I think the comparison is apt. You know, I've been reading the most recent biography of Robert Oppenheimer, and every time I think about AI, the specter of quantum physics, nuclear bombs, but also atomic energy, both peaceful and military purposes, is inescapable. AI Unverifiable source (2023)
Like Share on X 7mo ago
Policy proposals and claims

Verification History

AI Unverifiable Unable to fetch the congress.gov hearing transcript (403 to WebFetch). Web searches confirmed Blumenthal chaired multiple AI hearings in 2023 and discussed open source AI risks, deepfakes/nonconsensual imagery and the Oppenheimer/nuclear analogy generally, but I could not directly confirm the exact verbatim text quoted here. Vote 'for' on 'Ban open source AI models capable of creating WMDs' is consistent with his known position. Source URL inaccessible to AI; needs human review. · Hector Perez Arenas claude-opus-4-7 · 14d ago
replying to Richard Blumenthal