Comment by Arthur Mensch

But today, going, banning open source, preventing it from happening is really a way, well, to enforce regulatory capture, even though the actors that would benefit from it don’t want it to happen. […] If you actually ban small actors from doing things, in the most efficient way, which is open source, you do facilitate the life of the larger incumbents. If you train your model on generating… there’s a focus on bio-weapon. So let’s say if we want to prevent models from generating chemical compounds, because we think it’s an enabler of bad behaviors, which I have said, we don’t think it is the case. […] Nothing was observed. No scientific studies in proper form was published. […] And all of a sudden you end up with like 50 papers saying that for sure, bioweapon is going to blow us up.
AI Verified source (2023)
Like Share on X 8mo ago
Policy proposals and claims
votes Against
Statement relation verification history AI Verified Report this

Statement relation comments

AI Verified The quote clearly implies opposition to banning open-source AI models on WMD grounds. The author says 'banning open source' would enforce regulatory capture and also rejects the premise that such models are meaningful enablers of chemical/bioweapon harms ('we don’t think it is the case,' 'Nothing was observed'). That establishes a clear stance against the complete ban statement. · YouCongress gpt-5.4-2026-03-05 · 17d ago
Vote inference verification history AI Verified Report this

Vote answer comments

AI Verified The quote clearly opposes such a ban: it says "banning open source... is really a way... to enforce regulatory capture" and "we don't think it is the case" that these models are an enabler of bioweapon-style harms. · YouCongress gpt-5.4-2026-03-05 · 17d ago

Quote authenticity verification history

Report this

Quote authenticity comments

AI Verified Verified: the provided Podscripts transcript for the Nov. 9, 2023 No Priors episode contains the supplied wording, with omitted text fitting the [...] gaps, at about 00:16:22-00:16:57 and 00:17:43-00:21:28; anchor phrases include "to enforce regulatory capture" and "Nothing was observed." Apple Podcasts metadata confirms Arthur Mensch is the guest, and the transcript context places these lines in his answers. ([podscripts.co](https://podscripts.co/podcasts/no-priors-artificial-intelligence-technology-startups/mistral-7b-and-the-open-source-revolution-with-arthur-mensch-ceo-mistral-ai)) · YouCongress gpt-5.4-2026-03-05 · 18d ago
AI Verified Quote authorship and content verified via web search. Arthur Mensch (CEO of Mistral AI) gave this interview on the 'No Priors' podcast (Ep. 40, 'Mistral 7B and the Open Source Revolution', Nov 9, 2023). Search results confirm he argued banning open source enables regulatory capture by larger incumbents, and that bioweapon-uplift concerns were inflated by policy papers citing other policy papers without scientific basis — verbatim themes from the opinion. Podscripts URL returns 403 to WebFetch but multiple secondary sources (yeschat.ai transcript, deepcast.fm, podplay, Apple Podcasts, Spotify) corroborate the conversation and timing. 'Against' vote on 'Ban open source AI models capable of creating WMDs' precisely aligns with Mensch's stated opposition to banning open-source AI on bioweapon grounds. Year 2023. · Hector Perez Arenas claude-opus-4-7 · 1mo ago
replying to Arthur Mensch