Pith. sign in

REVIEW 7 cited by

The Foundation Model Transparency Index

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2310.12941 v1 pith:CPBBI56C submitted 2023-10-19 cs.LG cs.AI

classification cs.LGcs.AI
keywords foundationmodeltransparencyindexmodelsaffectedassessdevelopers
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Foundation models have rapidly permeated society, catalyzing a wave of generative AI applications spanning enterprise and consumer-facing contexts. While the societal impact of foundation models is growing, transparency is on the decline, mirroring the opacity that has plagued past digital technologies (e.g. social media). Reversing this trend is essential: transparency is a vital precondition for public accountability, scientific innovation, and effective governance. To assess the transparency of the foundation model ecosystem and help improve transparency over time, we introduce the Foundation Model Transparency Index. The Foundation Model Transparency Index specifies 100 fine-grained indicators that comprehensively codify transparency for foundation models, spanning the upstream resources used to build a foundation model (e.g data, labor, compute), details about the model itself (e.g. size, capabilities, risks), and the downstream use (e.g. distribution channels, usage policies, affected geographies). We score 10 major foundation model developers (e.g. OpenAI, Google, Meta) against the 100 indicators to assess their transparency. To facilitate and standardize assessment, we score developers in relation to their practices for their flagship foundation model (e.g. GPT-4 for OpenAI, PaLM 2 for Google, Llama 2 for Meta). We present 10 top-level findings about the foundation model ecosystem: for example, no developer currently discloses significant information about the downstream impact of its flagship model, such as the number of users, affected market sectors, or how users can seek redress for harm. Overall, the Foundation Model Transparency Index establishes the level of transparency today to drive progress on foundation model governance via industry standards and regulatory intervention.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 7 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. OpenAlex reports about 43 citations worldwide. Full citation record

  1. FlexOlmo: Open Language Models for Flexible Data Use

    cs.CL 2025-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    FlexOlmo merges independently trained language-model experts, trained on private data, into a single mixture-of-experts model without joint training.

  2. Macro-Prudential AI Governance: A Two-Layer Early Warning and Response System for Frontier AI

    cs.CY 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A Basel-III-style two-layer system—coordinated finder-coordinator-defender reporting plus ECAR, CRTH, and ARS buffers—can detect and dampen correlated risk build-up across frontier AI labs’ internal deployments.

  3. User Privacy and Large Language Models: An Analysis of Frontier Developers' Privacy Policies

    cs.CY 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    All six leading U.S. AI chatbot developers, as of May 2025, appear to train their models on users' chat data by default, often without clear opt-out options.

  4. MusGO: A Community-Driven Framework For Assessing Openness in Music-Generative AI

    cs.SD 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    MusGO is a community-refined framework with 13 openness categories, applied to 16 music-generative models to produce a public openness leaderboard.

  5. AI Data Development: A Scorecard for the System Card Framework

    cs.CY 2025-06 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A five-area scoring rubric for AI dataset documentation, applied to four datasets, shows consistent gaps in collection ethics and preprocessing details.

  6. Data-Centric Safety and Ethical Measures for Data and AI Governance

    cs.CY 2025-06 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

    A conceptual framework that maps dataset safety practices to six stages of the AI lifecycle, synthesizing existing documentation and red-teaming recommendations.

  7. Winter Soldier: Backdooring Language Models at Pre-Training with Indirect Data Poisoning

    cs.CR 2025-06

Pith tools