Claim and evidence Close ×
Alexander's post of 17 December 2015 argues, in response to the founding of OpenAI, that making AI findings open source lets the least careful developer set the pace and, if takeoff is fast and control difficult, makes catastrophe more likely, and that the benefit of spreading power does not justify that risk. Copy claim link
Copy claim reference
Machine-checked, not reviewed by an editor Stated in source Supported
Supporting evidence: primary · 1 source
Date 2015-12-17 · publication Records dated 2015 → Role Contesting, Earliest located Register (kind of text) Nonfiction Engagement Engages a premise. Answers the premise that wide distribution of AI prevents concentration of power, arguing it lets the least cautious developer decide. Scope and limits The argument is conditional on hard takeoff and difficult control; the post names OpenAI's founding statement and a press interview with its co-chairs, which are not evidence here. It concerns open-sourcing findings and designs, before open model weights.
The evidence 03 primary source Supports the claim
Should AI Be Open? ↗ Slate Star Codex (slatestarcodex.com) · 2015-12-17
Copy source reference
Cite the original source Cite the original document, not Selekoa. Check these details against it.
Copy APA
Download BibTeX Download RIS Download CSL-JSON
Source excerpt “The risk is letting the most careless person in the world determine the speed of AI research” Location in source Section II
How it was read Retrieved directly from the publisher
Machine-checked · 2026-10-31
Source details and check notes Authors Scott Alexander Version Retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-10-29 (SHA-256 9a7b3127bed79da78f368600c0b332966d124441815fd038de6f594127f653bd). Current blog page with comments; no archive capture compared. The cross-family check retrieved it again on 2026-10-31; the bytes differ, and the check compared the quoted passages. Canonical address Open the canonical source ↗ Accessed 2026-10-29 Language English (en) Attribution Scott Alexander, “Should AI Be Open?”, 2015-12-17. 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, arguments about catastrophic risk from advanced AI (research/risk-debate). The quotation (17 words) matched the text retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-10-29. Matching ignored differences of whitespace, case, quotation marks, dashes and Unicode compatibility forms, so the source’s typography can differ. No human editorial review. primary source Supports the claim
Should AI Be Open? ↗ Slate Star Codex (slatestarcodex.com) · 2015-12-17
Copy source reference
Cite the original source Cite the original document, not Selekoa. Check these details against it.
Copy APA
Download BibTeX Download RIS Download CSL-JSON
Source excerpt “The risk is that in a world with hard takeoffs and difficult control problems, you get superhuman AIs that hurl everybody off cliffs.” Location in source Section III, closing paragraphs
How it was read Retrieved directly from the publisher
Machine-checked · 2026-10-31
Source details and check notes Authors Scott Alexander Version Retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-10-29 (SHA-256 9a7b3127bed79da78f368600c0b332966d124441815fd038de6f594127f653bd). Current blog page with comments; no archive capture compared. The cross-family check retrieved it again on 2026-10-31; the bytes differ, and the check compared the quoted passages. Canonical address Open the canonical source ↗ Accessed 2026-10-29 Language English (en) Attribution Scott Alexander, “Should AI Be Open?”, 2015-12-17. 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, arguments about catastrophic risk from advanced AI (research/risk-debate). The quotation (23 words) matched the text retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-10-29. Matching ignored differences of whitespace, case, quotation marks, dashes and Unicode compatibility forms, so the source’s typography can differ. No human editorial review. primary source Supports the claim
Should AI Be Open? ↗ Slate Star Codex (slatestarcodex.com) · 2015-12-17
Copy source reference
Cite the original source Cite the original document, not Selekoa. Check these details against it.
Copy APA
Download BibTeX Download RIS Download CSL-JSON
Source excerpt “But the benefits just aren’t clear enough to justify that level of risk.” Location in source Section III, closing paragraphs
How it was read Retrieved directly from the publisher
Machine-checked · 2026-10-31
Source details and check notes Authors Scott Alexander Version Retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-10-29 (SHA-256 9a7b3127bed79da78f368600c0b332966d124441815fd038de6f594127f653bd). Current blog page with comments; no archive capture compared. The cross-family check retrieved it again on 2026-10-31; the bytes differ, and the check compared the quoted passages. Canonical address Open the canonical source ↗ Accessed 2026-10-29 Language English (en) Attribution Scott Alexander, “Should AI Be Open?”, 2015-12-17. 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, arguments about catastrophic risk from advanced AI (research/risk-debate). The quotation (13 words) matched the text retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-10-29. Matching ignored differences of whitespace, case, quotation marks, dashes and Unicode compatibility forms, so the source’s typography can differ. 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 posting.
Record ID rd-r15-alexander-2015-should-ai-be-open