Ban open source AI models capable of creating WMDs

Capability testing must be the primary input for open-release decisions because open-weight mitigation remains unreliable, and labs and governments must identify models that are too dangerous for unrestricted release.

Open-source AI-bio models possess potentially global, indiscriminate harm to states, people, animals, and the environment if not properly anticipated. While individual state actors may pursue their own BW programs, it is in no state’s interest to all...

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...

When you open source a big model and give people the weights [...] You get people using that open source model and training it, refining it to do something bad like cyberattacks or making biological weapons because it's much easier to refine the mode...

I think it's really important, because when we put open source out there for something that could be dangerous, which is a tiny minority of all the code that's open source, essentially we're opening the door to all the bad actors. And as these system...

There are some digital products (say CSAM and AI letting terrorists make bioweapons) that I oppose regardless of whether they are open-source or not, but I'm overall supportive of open source, and you can easily verify that my MIT research group defa...

endowing rogue nations or terrorists with tools to synthesize a deadly virus. [...] keep the “weights” of the most powerful models out of the public’s hands.

On the current course, the leading Chinese AGI labs won’t be in Beijing or Shanghai—they’ll be in San Francisco and London. In a few years, it will be clear that the AGI secrets are the United States’ most important national defense secrets—deserving...

ASL-2 refers to systems that show early signs of dangerous capabilities – [...] give instructions on how to build bioweapons – [...] e.g. a search engine couldn’t.

On the issue of open source, you each raised the security and safety risk of AI models that are open source or are leaked to the public, the danger. There are some advantages to having open source, as well. It's a complicated issue. I appreciate that...

But open sourcing, that's just sheer catastrophe. [...] wrong approach, the wrong ideal. [...] where if you could align it it would take time [...] not kill everyone.

Content controls, a free content filter, monitoring of applications, and a code of conduct are several other steps industry and academia, with the coaxing of the Administration and policymakers, could take to encourage responsible science and guard a...

Finally, to avoid that open-source models are accessed and retrofitted for malicious purposes a potential solution is to create self-destruct codes that activate if the model is tampered with.

However, the solution here is absolutely not to restrict open model development in the name of security—cyber, national, or otherwise.

Since computational infrastructure is largely open-access, decentralized, and global, regulatory chokepoints are limited. Export controls may delay access to high-performance computing, but they are unlikely to prevent the use of open-source models f...

current evidence is not sufficient [...] (but) take steps to ensure that the government is prepared to act if heightened risks emerge.

there has to be full open source here. [...] if you're worried about AI-generated pathogens, [...] Let's do a Manhattan Project for biological defense.

But today, going, banning open source, preventing it from happening is really a way, well, to enforce regulatory capture, even though the actors that would benefit from it don’t want it to happen. […] If you actually ban small actors from doing thing...

current evidence is not sufficient [...] (but) take steps to ensure that the government is prepared to act if heightened risks emerge.

CDT appreciates that the NTIA correctly concluded that there is not yet enough evidence of novel risks from open foundation models to warrant new restrictions on their distribution.