Someday AIs really will be able to make nukes or pull off $500 million hacks. At that point, companies will have to certify that their model has been trained not to do this, and that it will stay trained. But if it were open-source, then anyone could... more Verified source (2024)

The thought of open source AGI being released before we have worked out how to regulate these very powerful AI systems is really very scary, Unverified source (2024)

"If you put a model into the open, it isn't going to have guard rails built into it," Aguirre said. Unverified source (2024)

But despite the benefits, they can also pose a major risk. Unverified source (2025)

Due to our concerns about malicious applications of the technology, we are not releasing the trained model. Unverified source (2020)

Dual-use foundation models with widely available mod el weights could plausibly exacerbate the risks AI models pose to public safety by allowing a wider range of actors, including irresponsible and malicious users, to leverage the existing capabiliti... more Unverified source (2024)

Professor Geoffrey Hinton: The idea of opening up to all humanity sounds like open sourcing. It might be what I mean. But when you open source a big model and give people the weights that's not at all like open weights is not like open source. Open s... more Unverified source (2025)

Open-Source AI Is Uniquely Dangerous [...] As things stand today, unsecured AI poses an enormous risk that we are not yet able to contain. Unverified source (2024)

I love open source, but I see limitations [...] you can always remove the safety and security restrictions if you have access to the code itself. Unverified source (2024)

we need to increase governance and we should consider limiting access to the large-scale generalist AI systems that could be weaponized, which would mean that the code and neural net parameters would not be shared in open-source and some of the impor... more Verified source

These studies, on their own, are insufficient evidence to demonstrate increased marginal societal risk from open foundation models. Unverified source (2024)

Nefarious actors can use open models maliciously, [...] whereas developers of closed models have more means to identify and disrupt this malicious use. Unverified source (2024)

Yes open-source can be much better for other applications, but AI is similar to Nuclear power, do we want nuclear open source projects?

Open-source AI allows the public to audit and verify algorithms, [...] It is also more secure because any attacks or exploits can be identified and remediated. Unverified source (2025)

You can see exactly what is being done, because all the code is published so it can be publicly audited. Unverified source (2025)

"If you’re really serious about safety, you need to decentralise it," Rao said in an interview. Unverified source (2024)

But the real danger lies in centralized, black-box systems that resist open auditing. Unverified source (2025)

The researchers found that available evidence does not show that open models are riskier than closed models. Unverified source (2024)

"Governance is equally important whether it comes to open or proprietary AI," he clarified. Unverified source (2024)

it is an incorrect assumption – just because the model is closed-source – that those bad actors don’t have access to it. Unverified source (2025)

Open-source AI fosters innovation, improves security, and lowers costs—critical benefits for businesses, researchers, and everyday users around the world. Unverified source (2025)

All closed-source AI contracts with civilian agencies should be terminated immediately. Government AI should be built openly, with transparency and auditability at its core. Unverified source (2025)

[...] an open innovation ecosystem and see the immense value of community-built technology as the best way to grow AI responsibly and mitigate potential misuse. Unverified source (2024)

we need open source – especially for different kinds of national security and similar applications … [as] they are inspectable Unverified source (2025)

Open source is powerful because everybody can help. If everything’s behind closed doors, nobody can understand how it works. Unverified source (2023)

True, open-source models can be abused. But such thinking puts too much weight on the dangers of open-source AI and too little on the benefits. Unverified source (2025)

Lawmakers in Europe and California are worried that open-source AI is “dangerous.” On the contrary — there is nothing dangerous about transparency. Unverified source (2024)

America’s footprint in artificial intelligence is prodigious, and it is hard to overstate how consequential this is for the American national interest if it further develops with the right balance between innovation and guardrails. Into this new tech... more Unverified source (2025)

Since the launch of powerful open models like the Llama, Falcon, Mistral, and Stable Diffusion families, critics have pressed to keep other such genies in the bottle. "Open source software and open data can be an extraordinary resource for furthering... more Unverified source (2024)

Are open-source AI models more dangerous than closed models like GPT-4? A new study says no, and offers recommendations for policymakers. Open Foundation Models (OFMs) offer significant benefits by fostering competition, accelerating innovation, and... more Unverified source (2024)

We know for a fact that open-source software platforms are both more powerful and more secure than the closed-source versions. Unverified source (2024)

Open-source will ensure that more people around the world have access [...] It will make the world more prosperous and safer. Unverified source (2024)

Ethical and safe work in AI can happen anywhere along the open-to-closed gradient [...] The important thing is that labs evaluate systems. Unverified source (2023)