To clarify the ambiguous "open source" label, the Openness Index scores models across multiple dimensions. It evaluates not just if the weights are available, but also the degree to which training data, methodology, and code are disclosed. This creates a more useful spectrum of openness, distinguishing "open weights" from true "open science."
Related Insights
The need for explicit user transparency is most critical for nondeterministic systems like LLMs, where even creators don't always know why an output was generated. Unlike a simple rules engine with predictable outcomes, AI's "black box" nature requires giving users more context to build trust.
OpenFold's strategy isn't just to provide a free tool. By releasing its training code and data, it enables companies to create specialized versions by privately fine-tuning the model on their own proprietary data. This allows firms to maintain a competitive edge while leveraging a shared, open foundation.
A key disincentive for open-sourcing frontier AI models is that the released model weights contain residual information about the training process. Competitors could potentially reverse-engineer the training data set or proprietary algorithms, eroding the creator's competitive advantage.
The current trend toward closed, proprietary AI systems is a misguided and ultimately ineffective strategy. Ideas and talent circulate regardless of corporate walls. True, defensible innovation is fostered by openness and the rapid exchange of research, not by secrecy.
Instead of opaque 'black box' algorithms, MDT uses decision trees that allow their team to see and understand the logic behind every trade. This transparency is crucial for validating the model's decisions and identifying when a factor's effectiveness is decaying over time.
A common misconception is that Chinese AI is fully open-source. The reality is they are often "open-weight," meaning training parameters (weights) are shared, but the underlying code and proprietary datasets are not. This provides a competitive advantage by enabling adoption while maintaining some control.
For AI systems to be adopted in scientific labs, they must be interpretable. Researchers need to understand the 'why' behind an AI's experimental plan to validate and trust the process, making interpretability a more critical feature than raw predictive power.
The goal for trustworthy AI isn't simply open-source code, but verifiability. This means having mathematical proof, like attestations from secure enclaves, that the code running on a server exactly matches the public, auditable code, ensuring no hidden manipulation.
While the U.S. leads in closed, proprietary AI models like OpenAI's, Chinese companies now dominate the leaderboards for open-source models. Because they are cheaper and easier to deploy, these Chinese models are seeing rapid global uptake, challenging the U.S.'s perceived lead in AI through wider diffusion and application.
The Data Nutrition Project discovered that the act of preparing a 'nutrition label' forces data creators to scrutinize their own methods. This anticipatory accountability leads them to make better decisions and improve the dataset's quality, not just document its existing flaws.