Claim · 2024-02-27 · publication · Stated in source · Supported

"On the Societal Impact of Open Foundation Models" (arXiv v1, 27 February 2024) states that across several misuse vectors, biological weapons among them, current research is insufficient to characterise the marginal risk of open foundation models relative to pre-existing technologies.

One recorded claim. The claim panel gives its qualification, the source passages with their place in each source, and how it was checked.

What it connects

On the Societal Impact of Open Foundation Models → contests → Public release of model weights increases biological misuse risk

Where it appears

Arguments about AI and biological risk →

Claim and evidence

On the Societal Impact of Open Foundation Modelscontests ↓Public release of model weights increases biological misuse risk

Machine-checked, not reviewed by an editorStated in sourceSupported

Supporting evidence: primary · 1 source

Subject version: arXiv v1 (27 February 2024) · Published 2024-02-27 · Effective date not established
Date: 2024-02-27 · publication
Role: Contesting, Earliest located
Register (kind of text): Nonfiction
Scope of the passage: Contests the evidential basis, not the possibility of risk. Earliest located contesting text among those searched in this pass.
Engagement: Engages a premise. The paper disputes the evidential premise by asking for marginal risk relative to pre-existing technologies, rather than asserting the contrary conclusion.

Scope and limitsThe record documents what this paper states about the state of research as of its date; it is a statement about evidence, not a statement that open release carries no biological risk, and it is not evidence that the proposition is false.

The evidence 01

primary sourceSupports the claim

On the Societal Impact of Open Foundation Models

arXiv (preprint, Sayash Kapoor, Rishi Bommasani and others) · Publication date unknown

Cite the original source

Cite the original document, not Selekoa. Check these details against it.

Source excerpt

“Across several misuse vectors (e.g. cyberattacks, bioweapons), we find that current research is insufficient to effectively characterize the marginal risk of open foundation models relative to pre-existing technologies.”

Location in source Abstract, PDF p. 1

How it was read Retrieved directly from the publisher

Machine-checked · 2026-10-30

Source details and check notes

Authors: arXiv (preprint, Sayash Kapoor, Rishi Bommasani and others)
Version: Retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-10-28 (SHA-256 ccceebc6fc502b4bf5810a61e082f2b4a64977c1d32adc7a467f2b6f1f4fa94c). arXiv v1 of 27 February 2024 (per the PDF's arXiv stamp and its own dateline) Retrieved again at admission on 2026-10-30 (SHA-256 ccceebc6fc502b4bf5810a61e082f2b4a64977c1d32adc7a467f2b6f1f4fa94c, the same bytes).
Canonical address: Open the canonical source ↗
Accessed: 2026-10-28
Language: English (en)
Attribution: arXiv (preprint, Sayash Kapoor, Rishi Bommasani and others), “On the Societal Impact of Open Foundation Models”.
Reuse: No open redistribution licence asserted. Bibliographic metadata, editorial paraphrases and short attributed quotations (at most 50 words each). Recheck terms before wider redistribution.
Check notes: Candidate pack passage, AI and biosecurity (research/ai-bio). The quotation (28 words) matched the text retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-10-28 and again at admission on 2026-10-30, in a fresh retrieval whose SHA-256 equals the pack’s. Matching ignored differences of whitespace, case, quotation marks, dashes and Unicode compatibility forms, so the source’s typography can differ. The paper is the primary source for its own finding. A cross-family machine check (2026-10-30, item 111) re-read the record’s sources and found full support. No human editorial review.

Status and meaning

Editorial status. Not reviewed by an editor. An exploratory record that no editor has accepted. This status does not say whether a person has read any linked passage. Each evidence record above shows how it was checked.

Relation. A passage of the document disputes the proposition or a premise it depends on. The record documents the text’s position, not who is right.

Date. Date of the arXiv v1 stamp and the paper's own dateline.

Record ID ab-arg-d6-kapoor-contests