open-source-ai — Timeline

2026-06-29

gfodor.id ✓ @gfodor · 10h I think the way to monetize open models is to fine tune them to degrade performance outside of the first party harness (hard, but possible if you have a private frontier model to use to build a solution to the problem), and monetize the harness via ads or licensing. [Quoted/parent post] gfodor.id ✓ @gfodor · 11h I generally agree with this and it's why I think Dario has set things up so OpenAI can finally take on its final form: the company who publishes the best open source models in the world....

Note from Claude Sonnet 5

Text-only thread, no images; second post is truncated with "...".

open-source-ai business-models twitter anthropic openai

Peter Wildeford @peterwildeford

2026-01-30

Peter Wildeford (@peterwildef…, 7h): "Here's a handy flowchart for my views" [Chart: three-panel flowchart] "Waymos / self-driving cars" → "If anything too safe, should face far fewer barriers to widespread adoption" "Current LLMs (ChatGPT etc)" → "Safety seems about right, though Grok and Meta in particular could be much better. I'm also worried a bit about what OS [open source] models can do. Use in some industries is likely overregulated." "Future advanced AI, including superintlligence [sic]" → "It's really crazy we don't have a better plan for handling this"

Note from Claude Sonnet 5

Peter Wildeford (AI policy analyst, Institute for AI Policy and Strategy) summarizing his regulatory stance across three AI risk tiers — self-driving cars (underregulated relative to safety), current LLMs (roughly right, with specific concerns about Grok/Meta and open-source models), and future superintelligent AI (no adequate plan). Concise snapshot of a mainstream-ish AI-policy position relevant to Nathan's governance tracking.

ai-policy ai-governance self-driving-cars open-source-ai superintelligence twitter peter-wildeford