Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 cited by

Open-Sourcing Highly Capable Foundation Models: An evaluation of risks, benefits, and alternative methods for pursuing open-source objectives

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 2311.09227 v1 pith:IALG2JYV submitted 2023-09-29 cs.CY cs.AIcs.SE

classification cs.CYcs.AIcs.SE
keywords modelsbenefitscapableopen-sourcingfoundationhighlymodelopen-source
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Recent decisions by leading AI labs to either open-source their models or to restrict access to their models has sparked debate about whether, and how, increasingly capable AI models should be shared. Open-sourcing in AI typically refers to making model architecture and weights freely and publicly accessible for anyone to modify, study, build on, and use. This offers advantages such as enabling external oversight, accelerating progress, and decentralizing control over AI development and use. However, it also presents a growing potential for misuse and unintended consequences. This paper offers an examination of the risks and benefits of open-sourcing highly capable foundation models. While open-sourcing has historically provided substantial net benefits for most software and AI development processes, we argue that for some highly capable foundation models likely to be developed in the near future, open-sourcing may pose sufficiently extreme risks to outweigh the benefits. In such a case, highly capable foundation models should not be open-sourced, at least not initially. Alternative strategies, including non-open-source model sharing options, are explored. The paper concludes with recommendations for developers, standard-setting bodies, and governments for establishing safe and responsible model sharing practices and preserving open-source benefits where safe.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Who Does Withholding Delay? A Game-Theoretic Model of Open-Weight AI Release Under Asymmetric Proliferation

    cs.CY 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    For dual-use AI, withholding helps only if it delays harmful actors more than defenders; the paper derives a substitution-rate threshold that decides when open release beats control.

  2. The Safety Gap Toolkit: Evaluating Hidden Dangers of Open-Source Models

    cs.CY 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    On Llama-3 and Qwen-2.5, removing safety guardrails sharply raises compliance with dangerous bio, chem, and cyber requests, and the resulting safety gap grows with model scale.

  3. Position: AI/ML Deepfake Research is Misaligned with AI-Generated Non-Consensual Intimate Imagery (AIG-NCII)

    cs.AI 2026-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    The dominant real-world use of generative-image abuse is non-consensual intimate imagery, yet the AI/ML research field focuses almost exclusively on viewer deception.

  4. Technical Requirements for Halting Dangerous AI Activities

    cs.AI 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A taxonomy of compute-centric technical interventions, graded by readiness and mapped to five AI governance plans, argues that halting dangerous AI requires substantial control over AI compute.

Pith tools