Claim · 2024-11-27 · publication · Stated in source · Supported

Widder, Whittaker and West's article of 27 November 2024 argues that openness alone does not perturb the concentration of power in AI and that rhetoric around open AI is often used in ways that increase that concentration.

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

Why 'open' AI systems are actually closed, and why this matters → contests → Open models reduce risk

Where it appears

Arguments about catastrophic risk from advanced AI →

Claim and evidence

Why 'open' AI systems are actually closed, and why this matterscontests ↓Open models reduce risk

Machine-checked, not reviewed by an editorStated in sourceSupported

Supporting evidence: primary · 1 source

Date: 2024-11-27 · publication Records dated 2024 →
Role: Contesting
Register (kind of text): Nonfiction
Engagement: Engages a premise. Disputes the premise that open release widely distributes power.

Scope and limitsDisputes the distribution-of-power premise only; the article does not assess catastrophic or misuse risk, and states that maximally open AI allows some forms of oversight and experimentation.

The evidence 02

primary sourceSupports the claim

Why 'open' AI systems are actually closed, and why this matters

Nature 635 (2024) · 2024-11-27

Cite the original source

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

Source excerpt

“we find that openness alone does not perturb the concentration of power in AI.”

Location in source Abstract

How it was read Retrieved directly from the publisher

Machine-checked · 2026-10-31

Source details and check notes

Authors: David Gray Widder; Meredith Whittaker; Sarah Myers West
Version: Retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-10-29 (SHA-256 6a257c6cfc23b8156ae9c4ff91882409e3025d077e509d3c97b95be9c7c8e75a). Nature article page (open access) as currently served; no archive capture compared.
Canonical address: Open the canonical source ↗
Accessed: 2026-10-29
Language: English (en)
Attribution: David Gray Widder, Meredith Whittaker, Sarah Myers West, “Why 'open' AI systems are actually closed, and why this matters”, 2024-11-27.
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 (14 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 sourceSupports the claim

Why 'open' AI systems are actually closed, and why this matters

Nature 635 (2024) · 2024-11-27

Cite the original source

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

Source excerpt

“rhetoric around ‘open’ AI is frequently wielded in ways that exacerbate rather than reduce concentration of power in the AI sector.”

Location in source Abstract

How it was read Retrieved directly from the publisher

Machine-checked · 2026-10-31

Source details and check notes

Authors: David Gray Widder; Meredith Whittaker; Sarah Myers West
Version: Retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-10-29 (SHA-256 6a257c6cfc23b8156ae9c4ff91882409e3025d077e509d3c97b95be9c7c8e75a). Nature article page (open access) as currently served; no archive capture compared.
Canonical address: Open the canonical source ↗
Accessed: 2026-10-29
Language: English (en)
Attribution: David Gray Widder, Meredith Whittaker, Sarah Myers West, “Why 'open' AI systems are actually closed, and why this matters”, 2024-11-27.
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 (21 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 publication, as the source gives it.

Record ID rd-r15-widder-2024-open-closed