{"id":2386,"date":"2024-08-01T16:52:46","date_gmt":"2024-08-02T00:52:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blog.mozilla.org\/netpolicy\/?p=2386"},"modified":"2024-08-01T16:52:46","modified_gmt":"2024-08-02T00:52:46","slug":"ntia-affirms-the-importance-of-openness-in-ai","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blog.mozilla.org\/netpolicy\/2024\/08\/01\/ntia-affirms-the-importance-of-openness-in-ai\/","title":{"rendered":"NTIA Affirms the Importance of Openness in AI"},"content":{"rendered":"

This week, we got an eagerly anticipated look at how the US Government is thinking about openness and AI, a question that we\u2019re focusing<\/a> on a lot<\/a> at Mozilla<\/a>. On Tuesday, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) published<\/a> their review<\/a> of \u201copen-weight\u201d foundation models, and the risks, benefits, and potential policy approaches. NTIA\u2019s report is the result of a public consultation process<\/a> coming out of the Biden Administration\u2019s Executive Order on AI<\/a>. Mozilla weighed<\/a> in<\/a> with our views, sharing our history in the open source movement and the value of openness in AI.<\/p>\n

We welcome NTIA\u2019s recommendation that the US government take no current action to restrict open foundation models; this approach supports the ability of open source AI to flourish, promoting the benefits that openness can bring, like innovation, competition, and accountability.<\/p>\n

In their report, NTIA rightly notes that \u201ccurrent evidence is not sufficient to definitively determine either that restrictions on such open-weight models are warranted or that restrictions will never be appropriate in the future.\u201d Instead of recommending restrictions, NTIA suggests that the government \u201cactively monitor\u2026risks that could arise from dual-use foundation models with widely available model weights and take steps to ensure that the government is prepared to act if heightened risks emerge.\u201d<\/p>\n

NTIA\u2019s recommendations for collecting and evaluating relevant evidence include support for external research, increasing transparency, and bolstering federal government expert capabilities. We welcome this approach, and in our comments we called for governments to play a role in \u201cpromoting and funding research\u201d; we agree that it will help us all better understand and navigate the AI landscape.<\/p>\n

Competition is also featured in NTIA\u2019s report. While it\u2019s recognized that open-weight models alone aren\u2019t sufficient to bring about lasting and meaningful competition in the ecosystem, NTIA notes that foundation models can lower market barriers to entry and \u201cdecentralize AI market control from a few large AI developers.\u201d Mozilla\u2019s story began when we sought to bring much-needed competition to the browser market. We\u2019ve watched with concern as similar patterns of concentration emerged in the AI ecosystem, and agree that openness in AI can contribute to a solution.<\/p>\n

As we noted in our submission<\/a> to NTIA, \u201c[g]ood policymaking on AI, and on openness in AI in particular, therefore requires a careful balancing of benefits and risks as well as analytical rigor in taking into account the various dimensions and actors in the AI ecosystem. Rash decisions and ill-considered solutions may cause irreparable damage to the \u2018open source\u2019 AI ecosystem.\u201d<\/p>\n

We appreciate that NTIA has heard these concerns in their work and wholeheartedly support the broader lens through which they considered these tough questions around openness and AI \u2013 including recognizing the spectrum of openness, and centering analysis on marginal risk. Building on NTIA\u2019s own recommendations, we also reiterate the importance of providing robust support to the open source AI ecosystem and involving a broad range of stakeholders in making decisions about its governance, including through measures such as:<\/p>\n