REVIEW 5 cited by
The 2024 Foundation Model Transparency Index
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
The 2024 Foundation Model Transparency Index
read the original abstract
Foundation models are increasingly consequential yet extremely opaque. To characterize the status quo, the Foundation Model Transparency Index (FMTI) was launched in October 2023 to measure the transparency of leading foundation model developers. FMTI 2023 assessed 10 major foundation model developers (e.g. OpenAI, Google) on 100 transparency indicators (e.g. does the developer disclose the wages it pays for data labor?). At the time, developers publicly disclosed very limited information with the average score being 37 out of 100. To understand how the status quo has changed, we conduct a follow-up study after 6 months: we score 14 developers against the same 100 indicators. While in FMTI 2023 we searched for publicly available information, in FMTI 2024 developers submit reports on the 100 transparency indicators, potentially including information that was not previously public. We find that developers now score 58 out of 100 on average, a 21 point improvement over FMTI 2023. Much of this increase is driven by developers disclosing information during the FMTI 2024 process: on average, developers disclosed information related to 16.6 indicators that was not previously public. We observe regions of sustained (i.e. across 2023 and 2024) and systemic (i.e. across most or all developers) opacity such as on copyright status, data access, data labor, and downstream impact. We publish transparency reports for each developer that consolidate information disclosures: these reports are based on the information disclosed to us via developers. Our findings demonstrate that transparency can be improved in this nascent ecosystem, the Foundation Model Transparency Index likely contributes to these improvements, and policymakers should consider interventions in areas where transparency has not improved.
Forward citations
Cited by 5 Pith papers
-
Unsteady Metrics and Benchmarking Cultures of AI Model Builders
AI model builders mostly highlight unique benchmarks that act as flexible narrative tools for market positioning rather than standardized scientific measurements.
-
A governance horizon for ethical-use constraints in open-weight AI models
Ethical constraint evidence on open-weight AI models decays with a half-life of 1.31 derivation steps on Hugging Face, creating a governance horizon at seven generations where 80% of models lack traceable information.
-
The 2025 AI Agent Index: Documenting Technical and Safety Features of Deployed Agentic AI Systems
The 2025 AI Agent Index catalogs technical and safety details for 30 deployed AI agents and finds low developer transparency on safety, evaluations, and societal impacts.
-
Multi-agent Self-triage System with Medical Flowcharts
A multi-agent conversational system using AMA flowcharts achieves 95.29% top-3 retrieval accuracy and 99.10% navigation accuracy on large synthetic medical conversation datasets.
-
Designing Incident Reporting Systems for Harms from General-Purpose AI
A framework with seven dimensions for AI incident reporting systems is developed from literature and case studies in safety-critical industries to guide institutional design choices.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.