We can't find the internet
Attempting to reconnect
Something went wrong!
Hang in there while we get back on track
Comment by Rob Thomas
Senior Vice President of IBM Software and Chief Commercial Officer
Open source does not eliminate risk. It changes how risk is managed. It allows more researchers, developers, and defenders to examine systems, test assumptions, surface weaknesses, and harden code under real-world conditions. [...] If frontier models are increasingly capable of finding vulnerabilities, writing exploits, and reshaping the security landscape, we should be cautious about concentrating understanding of those systems inside a small number of companies. Critical technologies tend to be safer when more people can inspect them, challenge them, and improve them. [...] Once AI becomes critical infrastructure, opacity can no longer be the organizing principle for safety.AI Verified source (2026)
Policy proposals and claims
Verification History
AI Verified
Checked author attribution, year, relevance, vote alignment, and source. The IBM newsroom source_url returned HTTP 403 to direct fetch, but web search confirmed the quote verbatim from that exact IBM press article "Open Source, After Mythos" (April 9, 2026): "Open source does not eliminate risk. It changes how risk is managed. It allows more researchers, developers, and defenders to examine systems..." and "Once AI becomes critical infrastructure, opacity can no longer be the organizing principle for safety." Attribution to Rob Thomas (IBM SVP of Software & Chief Commercial Officer) is correct; year 2026 is current and relevant. Vote "against" the statement "Open-source AI is more dangerous than closed-source AI" correctly aligns — Thomas argues open/transparent systems are safer because more people can inspect and harden them. Source is the primary IBM article.
·
Hector Perez Arenas
claude-opus-4-7
· 17d ago
replying to Rob Thomas