Open Shouldn't Mean Exempt: Open-Source Exceptionalism and Generative AI
It addresses the problem of regulatory exemptions for open-source AI developers, advocating for uniform ethical and legal standards, but is incremental in proposing a tailored safe harbor.
The paper critiques the flawed assumption that open-source generative AI is inherently ethical or legal, demonstrating how it often facilitates unlawful conduct and environmental harm without disrupting oligopolies, and proposes a safe harbor for non-commercial research.
Any argument that open-source generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) is inherently ethical or legal solely because it is open source is flawed. Yet, this is the explicit or implicit stance of several open-source GenAI entities. This paper critically examines prevalent justifications for "open-source exceptionalism," demonstrating how contemporary open-source GenAI often inadvertently facilitates unlawful conduct and environmental degradation without genuinely disrupting established oligopolies. Furthermore, the paper exposes the unsubstantiated and strategic deployment of "democratization" and "innovation" rhetoric to advocate for regulatory exemptions not afforded to proprietary systems. The conclusion is that open-source developers must be held to the same legal and ethical standards as all other actors in the technological ecosystem. However, the paper proposes a narrowly tailored safe harbor designed to protect legitimate, non-commercial scientific research, contingent upon adherence to specific criteria. Ultimately, this paper advocates for a framework of responsible AI development, wherein openness is pursued within established ethical and legal boundaries, with due consideration for its broader societal implications.