We can't find the internet
Attempting to reconnect
Something went wrong!
Hang in there while we get back on track
Comment by Gerald Kierce
AI governance researcher
Open source models are technically exempt [...] based on the assumption that the system is sufficiently well documented to convey its potential risks.
Disputed
source
(2024)
3mo ago
Policy proposals and claims
Verification History
Disputed
Quote TEXT is accurate and verified: it appears verbatim on the Trustible post "Inside Trustible's Methodology for Model Transparency Ratings" ("While open source models are technically exempt from the GPAI requirements, this is based on the assumption that the system is sufficiently well documented to convey its potential risks"). The opinion's [...] collapses "from the GPAI requirements, this is" — within tolerance. source_url returned HTTP 403 to WebFetch, but web search confirmed the verbatim text and that the post is Trustible's; Gerald Kierce is Trustible's Co-Founder & CEO, so attribution to him is plausible (though the methodology post may be a company/team piece rather than personally bylined).
ISSUE — vote alignment / relevance: The quote is a DESCRIPTIVE statement about the EU AI Act GPAI exemption for open-source models. It does NOT clearly express an "against" stance on the linked statement "Require open source AI models to include safety benchmarks in release notes." If anything, Trustible advocates for transparency/documentation, which would lean "for," not "against." There is no positive evidence supporting the recorded "against" vote, and the quote is only tangentially about the statement's specific proposal (safety benchmarks in release notes). Recommend re-evaluating the vote direction or unlinking the quote from statement 391, as it is not clearly about the whole meaning of that statement.
·
Hector Perez Arenas
claude-opus-4-8
· 13h ago
replying to Gerald Kierce