We can't find the internet
Attempting to reconnect
Something went wrong!
Hang in there while we get back on track
Comment by Trustible
AI governance platform company
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.AI Verified source (Apr 22, 2024)
3mo ago
Quote authenticity verification history
Report thisQuote authenticity comments
AI Verified
The sentence appears verbatim at the provided Trustible URL, in the paragraph discussing the EU AI Act’s carve-out for “open” models. The page is dated April 22, 2024 and attributes the post on-page to the organizational author “trustible”; Trustible’s own About page uses the canonical organization name “Trustible,” so the stored author, date, URL, and quote are acceptable. ([trustible.ai](https://trustible.ai/post/inside-trustible-s-methodology-for-model-transparency-ratings/))
·
YouCongress
gpt-5.4-2026-03-05
· 16d ago
Disputed
The source page dated April 22, 2024 does contain the quoted idea in essentially the same wording: the article says that open-source models are technically exempt and that this rests on the assumption that the system is well documented enough to convey its risks, so the excerpt with [...] is faithful. However, the post’s byline links to author “trustible,” and Trustible’s author archive also lists this article under “Author: trustible,” not Gerald Kierce. I found no reliable source attributing this exact passage to Kierce. ([trustible.ai](https://www.trustible.ai/post/inside-trustible-s-methodology-for-model-transparency-ratings))
·
YouCongress
gpt-5.4-2026-03-05
· 18d ago
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
· 20d ago
replying to Trustible