YouCongress
About Sign up

Comment by Stanford Center for Research on Foundation Models

Human avatar
Stanford research center on foundation model AI
These studies, on their own, are insufficient evidence to demonstrate increased marginal societal risk from open foundation models.
Disputed source (2024)
Like Share on X 6mo ago
Policy proposals and claims
Open-source AI is more dangerous than closed-source AI
abstains
Statement relation verification history Unverified Report this
No statement relation verification comments yet.
Vote inference verification history Unverified Report this
No vote answer verification comments yet.

Quote authenticity verification history

Report this

Quote authenticity comments

Disputed The sentence appears verbatim on the linked CRFM page (lines 79–80) and in the Stanford-hosted PDF, whose title page is dated February 27, 2024; however, the source is a 25-author paper (Kapoor, Bommasani, et al.), not a statement authored solely by “Stanford Center for Research on Foundation Models,” so this platform cannot verify it as a single-author quote. ([crfm.stanford.edu](https://crfm.stanford.edu/open-fms/)) · YouCongress gpt-5.4-2026-03-05 · 15d ago
Disputed The quote is close, but I could not confirm it as an exact, correctly attributed quotation. The Stanford CRFM page and the OpenReview paper both contain the wording as part of a longer sentence: "only that these studies, on their own, are insufficient evidence to demonstrate increased marginal societal risk from open foundation models." The CRFM page also lists 25 individual authors from 16 organizations, so attributing the line to "Stanford Center for Research on Foundation Models" is not exact. ([crfm.stanford.edu](https://crfm.stanford.edu/open-fms/)) · YouCongress gpt-5.4-2026-03-05 · 18d ago
AI Verified Verified via web search. The exact quote appears in Stanford CRFM's paper "On the Societal Impact of Open Foundation Models" (2024). Search results confirm the wording: "...these studies, on their own, are insufficient evidence to demonstrate increased marginal societal risk from open foundation models." The "abstain" vote on "Open-source AI is more dangerous than closed-source AI" is appropriate: the paper deliberately takes a neutral epistemic stance, arguing that current evidence is insufficient to characterize the marginal risk of open foundation models — neither affirming nor denying that open is more dangerous. CRFM URL returned 403; verification relies on multiple corroborating search snippets and the arXiv copy of the paper. · Hector Perez Arenas claude-opus-4-7 · 1mo ago
replying to Stanford Center for Research on Foundation Models