Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 2 minor 42 references

A multi-sectoral workshop shows responsible openness in AI as a negotiated sociotechnical project shaped by values and priorities rather than a single technical solution.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · grok-4.3

2026-06-27 20:23 UTC pith:YCASFFVG

load-bearing objection Workshop report surfaces four tensions in open AI but needs participant details to support its claims about moving past industry views. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2606.07764 v1 pith:YCASFFVG submitted 2026-06-05 cs.CY

Reimagining Open Source and Openness in AI: Co-Creating Responsible Technological Futures

Genevieve Smith , Hiral Patel , Steven Luo , Monica G. Bobra , Judy Brewer , Cathryn Carson , Isadora Cruxen , Shachee Doshi
show 15 more authors
Maximilian Gahntz Nicholas Garcia Natalia Luka Meredith M. Lee Min Kyung Lee Woohyeuk Lee Jarrod Millman Ricardo Miron Torres Chinasa T. Okolo Cailean Osborne Derek Slater Katie Steen-James Nikko Stevens Jennifer Tridgell David Gray Widder
This is my paper
classification cs.CY
keywords open source AIresponsible opennessparticipatory designfutures thinkingAI governancesociotechnical systemsstakeholder negotiationworkshop methods
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper presents results from a workshop that brought together participants from multiple sectors to co-create visions of desirable AI futures and define responsible approaches to open source and openness. Using futures thinking and participatory design, the process produced shared visions along with action pathways and a research roadmap. The key outcome is the identification of four tensions that arise when turning aspirations into actions, including whether openness serves as an end in itself or a means to other goals, how broadly it should expand versus provide meaningful access, and whether it should be mandatory or conditional and sufficient on its own or reliant on governance. These findings establish that responsible openness cannot be reduced to technical choices alone.

Core claim

The workshop generated co-created visions of AI futures and action pathways, but translating these into concrete steps surfaced four core tensions: openness as an end versus a means, its scope as expansion versus meaningful access, and its operation as mandatory versus conditional and as sufficient versus dependent on governance and use. The paper states that these tensions demonstrate responsible openness is not a singular technical solution but a negotiated sociotechnical project shaped by values, positionalities, and priorities.

What carries the argument

The four core tensions that emerged when participants translated high-level aspirations for responsible openness into concrete actions during the participatory workshop.

Load-bearing premise

The workshop participants collectively represent diverse stakeholder understandings and can negotiate responsible openness beyond industry-led definitions.

What would settle it

A follow-up workshop or survey with a substantially different mix of stakeholders that produces either no tensions or a different set of tensions would challenge the claim that these four tensions are central.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • AI governance efforts must treat openness as requiring ongoing negotiation among stakeholders rather than adopting one fixed definition.
  • Participatory futures methods can generate plural visions and priorities that differ from dominant corporate narratives.
  • Research on AI openness should prioritize understanding how values and positionalities shape interpretations of purpose, scope, and operation.
  • Action pathways for open AI must incorporate mechanisms to address conflicts between mandatory and conditional approaches.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Policy development for AI could incorporate repeated stakeholder workshops to surface and resolve similar tensions over time.
  • The approach might extend to other areas of technology governance such as data sharing or model auditing where openness definitions also conflict.
  • Testing the tensions in real AI development projects could reveal whether they persist or resolve differently in practice.
  • Industry definitions of openness may systematically underrepresent concerns from non-corporate stakeholders.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper reports findings from a multi-sectoral workshop using futures thinking and participatory design methods to co-create visions of desirable futures for AI, action pathways, and a research roadmap on responsible open source and openness in AI. It makes three contributions: empirical documentation of the visions/actions/priorities; identification of four core tensions (purpose as end vs. means; scope as expansion vs. meaningful access; operation as mandatory vs. conditional and sufficient vs. governance/use-dependent) that emerged when translating aspirations to actions; and advancement of participatory methods to surface plural visions beyond dominant corporate narratives. The tensions are presented as evidence that responsible openness is a negotiated sociotechnical project shaped by values, positionalities, and priorities rather than a singular technical solution.

Significance. If supported by adequate methodological detail, the work offers significance for AI governance research by providing empirical grounding for the view that openness debates involve value conflicts and power dynamics best addressed through participatory processes. The identification of specific tensions could inform policy and practice by highlighting trade-offs that purely technical or industry-led frameworks overlook. The methodological demonstration of futures/participatory approaches has potential to influence how governance research incorporates diverse stakeholder inputs.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and Methods] The manuscript provides no details on workshop participant selection, total number, sectoral balance, recruitment criteria, or measures to counter power imbalances and surface non-industry perspectives (Abstract, contributions paragraph; methods description). This information is load-bearing for the central claim that the workshop negotiated visions 'beyond dominant, largely corporate, narratives' and that the tensions reflect plural stakeholder understandings rather than reproduction of existing framings.
  2. [Abstract and Results] No information is given on data collection, qualitative analysis methods, or validation steps used to derive and confirm the four tensions from workshop outputs (Abstract, paragraph on contributions). Without this, it is difficult to assess whether the tensions are robust findings or high-level summaries, directly affecting the reliability of the sociotechnical negotiation argument.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Results] The four tensions could be presented with brief illustrative examples or participant quotes to make the translation from aspirations to actions more concrete.
  2. [Introduction] Consider adding references to prior participatory design work in AI ethics or open source governance to better situate the methodological contribution.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thoughtful and constructive report. The comments highlight important areas for improving methodological transparency, which we will address through targeted revisions to strengthen the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and Methods] The manuscript provides no details on workshop participant selection, total number, sectoral balance, recruitment criteria, or measures to counter power imbalances and surface non-industry perspectives (Abstract, contributions paragraph; methods description). This information is load-bearing for the central claim that the workshop negotiated visions 'beyond dominant, largely corporate, narratives' and that the tensions reflect plural stakeholder understandings rather than reproduction of existing framings.

    Authors: We agree that the current manuscript lacks sufficient detail on these aspects, which is necessary to support claims about plural perspectives. In the revised version, we will expand the methods section to specify the total number of participants, their sectoral distribution (including explicit non-industry representation), recruitment approach via targeted outreach, and facilitation measures designed to address power dynamics. These additions will provide the required grounding without altering the core findings. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract and Results] No information is given on data collection, qualitative analysis methods, or validation steps used to derive and confirm the four tensions from workshop outputs (Abstract, paragraph on contributions). Without this, it is difficult to assess whether the tensions are robust findings or high-level summaries, directly affecting the reliability of the sociotechnical negotiation argument.

    Authors: We concur that explicit description of the analytical process is essential for assessing the robustness of the tensions. The revised manuscript will include details on data collection (recordings, notes, and artifacts), the qualitative methods employed (thematic analysis with iterative coding), and validation steps (such as cross-researcher review and participant confirmation). This will clarify how the tensions were systematically derived from the workshop outputs. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; empirical claims are direct outputs of described workshop process

full rationale

The paper is a qualitative empirical study reporting co-created visions and tensions from a multi-sectoral workshop. The central claim—that the four tensions show responsible openness as a negotiated sociotechnical project—is presented as an interpretation of workshop outputs, with no equations, fitted parameters, self-definitional structures, or load-bearing self-citations. No step reduces by construction to prior inputs; the derivation chain is self-contained against the workshop data.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

This qualitative paper introduces no free parameters, mathematical axioms, or invented entities; it relies on standard assumptions of participatory research validity and stakeholder representation.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5895 in / 1049 out tokens · 22224 ms · 2026-06-27T20:23:10.589302+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Reimagining Open Source and Openness in AI: Co-Creating Responsible Technological Futures." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YCASFFVG

@misc{pith2026260607764,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Reimagining Open Source and Openness in AI: Co-Creating Responsible Technological Futures},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YCASFFVG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2606.07764}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Debates over open source and openness in artificial intelligence have intensified as policymakers, researchers, and practitioners grapple with how foundation models should be developed and governed to balance innovation, accountability, and public interest. However, there has been limited empirical work examining how diverse stakeholders collectively understand and negotiate responsible openness in AI, particularly through participatory processes that extend beyond industry-led definitions and frameworks. This paper presents findings from a multi-sectoral workshop grounded in futures thinking and participatory design methods. The workshop generated co-created visions of desirable futures and the role of AI, alongside a set of action pathways and a research roadmap focused on responsible open source and openness in AI. This paper makes three key contributions. First, it empirically documents the co-created visions, actions, and research priorities. Second, it identifies four core tensions that emerged as participants translated high-level aspirations into concrete actions, revealing conflicting interpretations of openness regarding its purpose (as an end or a means), its scope (expansion versus meaningful access), and its operation (mandatory versus conditional, sufficient versus dependent on governance and use). These tensions illustrate that responsible openness is not a singular technical solution, but a negotiated sociotechnical project shaped by values, positionalities, and priorities. Third, the paper advances methodological approaches in AI governance by demonstrating how participatory futures methods can surface plural visions, actions, and research priorities that extend beyond dominant, largely corporate, narratives, offering empirical insight into how openness, power, and accountability are negotiated in practice.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    E., Gaffley, M., Pabón, F

    Adams, R., Adeleke, F., Junck, L., Segun, S., Alayande, A., Abdella, S. E., Gaffley, M., Pabón, F. A. D., and Salami, F.AI in africa: A landscape study. Tech. rep., Global Center on AI Governance, Mar. 2025. [2]Allen Institute for AI. Open models. Allen Institute for AI, 2024

    2025

  2. [2]

    Scaling the tülu 3 post-training recipes to surpass the performance of deepseek v3

    Allen Institute for AI. Scaling the tülu 3 post-training recipes to surpass the performance of deepseek v3. Allen Institute for AI Blog, Jan. 2025. [4]Bdeir, A., and François, C.Introducing the Columbia Convening on openness and AI. Mozilla Blog, Mar. 2024

    2025

  3. [3]

    Bender, E. M., Gebru, T., McMillan-Major, A., and Shmitchell, S.On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big? InProceedings of the 2021 ACM conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency(2021), pp. 610–623. [6]Benjamin, R.Race After Technology: Abolitionist Tools for the New Jim Code. Polity, Cambridge, UK, 2019. [7]Benja...

    2021

  4. [4]

    E., Narayanan, A., and Liang, P.Considerations for governing open foundation models

    Bommasani, R., Kapoor, S., Klyman, K., Longpre, S., Ramaswami, A., Zhang, D., Schaake, M., Ho, D. E., Narayanan, A., and Liang, P.Considerations for governing open foundation models. Policy brief, Stanford Institute for Human-Centered AI, Dec. 2023. [11]Bowker, G. C., and Star, S. L.Sorting Things Out: Classification and Its Consequences. MIT Press, Cambr...

    2023

  5. [5]

    E., Harrington, C., Parker, A

    Bray, K. E., Harrington, C., Parker, A. G., Diakhate, N., and Roberts, J.Radical futures: Supporting community-led design engagements through an afrofuturist speculative design toolkit. InProceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(New York, NY, USA, 2022), CHI ’22, Association for Computing Machinery

    2022

  6. [6]

    MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, 2011

    Callon, M., Lascoumes, P., and Barthe, Y.Acting in an Uncertain World: An Essay on Technical Democracy. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, 2011

    2011

  7. [7]

    R., Herczog, E., Hudson, M., Russell, K., and Stall, S.Operationalizing the care and fair principles for indigenous data futures.Scientific data 8, 1 (2021), 108

    Carroll, S. R., Herczog, E., Hudson, M., Russell, K., and Stall, S.Operationalizing the care and fair principles for indigenous data futures.Scientific data 8, 1 (2021), 108. Reimagining Open Source and Openness in AI FAccT ’26, June 25–28, 2026, Montreal, QC, Canada

    2021

  8. [8]

    Casper, S., O’Brien, K., Longpre, S., Seger, E., Klyman, K., Bommasani, R., Nrusimha, A., Shumailov, I., Mindermann, S., Basart, S., Rudzicz, F., Pelrine, K., Ghosh, A., Strait, A., Kirk, R., Hendrycks, D., Henderson, P., Kolter, Z., Irving, G., Gal, Y., Bengio, Y., and Hadfield-Menell, D.Open technical problems in open-weight ai model risk management.Soc...

    2025

  9. [9]

    a step towards the decolonization of knowledge, July 2020

    Chan, L., Hall, B., Piron, F., Tandon, R., and Williams, L.Open science beyond open access: For and with communities. a step towards the decolonization of knowledge, July 2020

    2020

  10. [10]

    Introducing Qualitative Methods

    Charmaz, K.Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis. Introducing Qualitative Methods. SAGE Publications, 2006

    2006

  11. [11]

    Z., Mandel, I., and Benthall, S.The brief and wondrous life of open models

    Choksi, M. Z., Mandel, I., and Benthall, S.The brief and wondrous life of open models. InProceedings of the 2025 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency(New York, NY, USA, 2025), FAccT ’25, Association for Computing Machinery, p. 3224–3240. [20]Costanza-Chock, S.Design Justice: Community-Led Practices to Build the Worlds We Need. MIT ...

    2025

  12. [12]

    Yale University Press, New Haven, CT, USA, 2022

    Crawford, K.The Atlas of AI: Power, Politics, and the Planetary Costs of Artificial Intelligence. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT, USA, 2022. [22]Daigle, K., and GitHub Staff. Octoverse: The state of open source and rise of ai in 2023, Nov. 2023. Accessed: 2024-01-13. [23]Dunne, A., and Raby, F.Speculative Everything: Design, Fiction, and Social Drea...

    2022

  13. [13]

    A., Landay, L., Jackson, M., Torr, P

    Eiras, F., Petrov, A., Vidgen, B., Schroeder, C., Pizzati, F., Elkins, K., Mukhopadhyay, S., Bibi, A., Purewal, A., Botos, C., Steibel, F., Keshtkar, F., Barez, F., Smith, G., Guadagni, G., Chun, J., Cabot, J., Imperial, J., Nolazco, J. A., Landay, L., Jackson, M., Torr, P. H. S., Darrell, T., Lee, Y., and Foerster, J.Risks and opportunities of open-sourc...

    2024

  14. [14]

    [28]Harding, S

    Haraway, D.Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective.Feminist Studies 14, 3 (1988), 575–599. [28]Harding, S. G.Whose Science? Whose Knowledge? Thinking from Women’s Lives. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY, USA, 1991

    1988

  15. [15]

    R.Eliciting tech futures among black young adults: A case study of remote speculative co-design

    Harrington, C., and Dillahunt, T. R.Eliciting tech futures among black young adults: A case study of remote speculative co-design. InProceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(New York, NY, USA, 2021), CHI ’21, Association for Computing Machinery. [30]Hendrycks, D., Mazeika, M., and Woodside, T.An overview of catastrophic...

    2021

  16. [16]

    InProceedings of the 2025 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency(New York, NY, USA, 2025), FAccT ’25, Association for Computing Machinery, pp

    Kallina, E., Bohné, T., and Singh, J.Stakeholder participation for responsible AI development: Disconnects between guidance and current practice. InProceedings of the 2025 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency(New York, NY, USA, 2025), FAccT ’25, Association for Computing Machinery, pp. 1060–1079

    2025

  17. [17]

    38 ofCAEPR Research Monograph

    Kukutai, T., and Taylor, J., Eds.Indigenous Data Sovereignty: Toward an Agenda, vol. 38 ofCAEPR Research Monograph. ANU Press, Canberra, Australia, 2016

    2016

  18. [18]

    N.How open source machine learning software shapes AI

    Langenkamp, M., and Yue, D. N.How open source machine learning software shapes AI. InProceedings of the 2022 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society(New York, NY, USA, 2022), AIES ’22, Association for Computing Machinery, pp. 385–395

    2022

  19. [19]

    L., and Zheng, S.Deepseek doesn’t want to talk about Tiananmen Square: Here’s what to know

    Lee, J. L., and Zheng, S.Deepseek doesn’t want to talk about Tiananmen Square: Here’s what to know. Bloomberg, Jan. 2025. Accessed: 2026-01-12

    2025

  20. [20]

    InProceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency(2024), ACM

    Liesenfeld, A., and Dingemanse, M.Rethinking open source generative AI: open-washing and the EU AI act. InProceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency(2024), ACM

    2024

  21. [21]

    Linåker, J., Osborne, C., Ding, J., and Burtenshaw, B.A cartography of open collaboration in open source AI: Mapping practices, motivations, and governance in 14 open large language model projects, 2025

    2025

  22. [22]

    Longpre, S., Akiki, C., Lund, C., Kulkarni, A., Chen, E., Solaiman, I., Ghosh, A., Jernite, Y., and Kaffee, L.-A.Economies of open intelligence: Tracing power & participation in the model ecosystem, 2025

    2025

  23. [23]

    J., Wikstrom, E

    Lu, A. J., Wikstrom, E. V., and Dillahunt, T. R.Contamination, otherness, and negotiating bottom-up sociotechnical imaginaries in participatory speculative design. InProceedings of the 2024 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference(New York, NY, USA, 2024), DIS ’24, Association for Computing Machinery, pp. 1308–1324

    2024

  24. [24]

    InThe Deliberative Democracy Handbook: Strategies for Effective Civic Engagement in the Twenty-First Century, J

    Mansbridge, J., Hartz-Karp, J., Amengual, M., and Gastil, J.Norms of deliberation: An inductive study. InThe Deliberative Democracy Handbook: Strategies for Effective Civic Engagement in the Twenty-First Century, J. Gastil and P. Levine, Eds. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, USA, 2006, pp. 283–299. [41]Mouffe, C.On the Political. Thinking in Action. Routle...

    2006

  25. [25]

    Z.Imagining inclusive technological futures through participatory board game design.The Design Journal 27, 2 (2024), 185–201

    Odendaal, A., and Barreda, K. Z.Imagining inclusive technological futures through participatory board game design.The Design Journal 27, 2 (2024), 185–201. [43]Open Source Initiative. The open source AI definition, 2024. Accessed 2026-01-11. [44]Open Source Initiative. Open-Source AI Definition 1.0. Open Source Initiative, October 2024. Accessed: 2025-12-15

    2024

  26. [26]

    Meta’s LLaMA license is still not open source

    Open Source Initiative. Meta’s LLaMA license is still not open source. Open Source Initiative Blog, March 2025. Accessed: 2026-01-07

    2025

  27. [27]

    InCompanion FAccT ’26, June 25–28, 2026, Montreal, QC, Canada Smith et al

    Osborne, C.Open source software developers’ views on public and private funding: A case study on scikit-learn. InCompanion FAccT ’26, June 25–28, 2026, Montreal, QC, Canada Smith et al. Publication of the 2024 Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing(New York, NY, USA, 2024), CSCW Companion ’24, Association for Computing Mach...

    2026

  28. [28]

    L.Opening the scope of openness in ai

    Paris, T., Moon, A., and Guo, J. L.Opening the scope of openness in ai. InProceedings of the 2025 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT ’25)(2025), Association for Computing Machinery

    2025

  29. [29]

    We asked DeepSeek about geopolitics

    POLITICO EU Staff. We asked DeepSeek about geopolitics. it gave us Beijing talking points. POLITICO Pro, Feb. 2025. Accessed: 2026-01-12

    2025

  30. [30]

    M., Wang, S

    Scott, K. M., Wang, S. M., Miceli, M., Delobelle, P., Sztandar-Sztanderska, K., and Berendt, B.Algorithmic tools in public employment services: Towards a jobseeker-centric perspective. InProceedings of the 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency(New York, NY, USA, 2022), FAccT ’22, Association for Computing Machinery, pp. 2138–2148

    2022

  31. [31]

    [51]Solaiman, I.The gradient of generative ai release: Methods and considerations, 2023

    Seger, E., Dreksler, N., Moulange, R., Dardaman, E., Schuett, J., Wei, K., Winter, C., Arnold, M., Ó hÉigeartaigh, S., Korinek, A., Anderljung, M., Bucknall, B., Chan, A., Stafford, E., Koessler, L., Ovadya, A., Garfinkel, B., Bluemke, E., Aird, M., Levermore, P., Hazell, J., and Gupta, A.Open-sourcing highly capable foundation models: An evaluation of ri...

    2023

  32. [32]

    opening up

    Stirling, A.“opening up” and “closing down”: Power, participation, and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology.Science, Technology, & Human Values 33, 2 (2008), 262–294. Published online in 2007

    2008

  33. [33]

    L., Bhargava, R., Cruxen, I., Cuba, A

    Suresh, H., Movva, R., Dogan, A. L., Bhargava, R., Cruxen, I., Cuba, A. M., Taurino, G., So, W., and D’Ignazio, C.Towards intersectional feminist and participatory ML: A case study in supporting feminicide counterdata collection. InProceedings of the 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency(New York, NY, USA, 2022), FAccT ’22, Ass...

    2022

  34. [34]

    Journal of Futures Studies 12, 3 (2008), 107–122

    Terranova, V.Navigating by the stars: Using futures methodologies to create a preferred vision for the workforce – A case study. Journal of Futures Studies 12, 3 (2008), 107–122. [55]The Linux Foundation. Is it open? Model evaluation, 2025

    2008

  35. [35]

    Winning the race: America’s AI action plan

    The White House. Winning the race: America’s AI action plan. Strategy document, Executive Office of the President of the United States, July 2025. Accessed: 2026-01-12

    2025

  36. [36]

    Ownership, not just happy talk

    Tseng, E., Young, M., Le Quéré, M. A., Rinehart, A., and Suresh, H.“Ownership, not just happy talk”: Co-designing a participatory large language model for journalism. InProceedings of the 2025 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency(New York, NY, USA, 2025), FAccT ’25, Association for Computing Machinery

    2025

  37. [37]

    Technology and innovation report 2025: Inclusive artificial intelligence for development

    UNCTAD. Technology and innovation report 2025: Inclusive artificial intelligence for development. Flagship Report UNCTAD/TIR/2025, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, Geneva, Switzerland, Apr. 2025

    2025

  38. [38]

    InCompanion Proceedings of the 2025 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (New York, NY, USA, 2025), FAccT ’25 CRAFT, Association for Computing Machinery

    van den Boom, F.AI in the wild-walk. InCompanion Proceedings of the 2025 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (New York, NY, USA, 2025), FAccT ’25 CRAFT, Association for Computing Machinery. CRAFT Contribution

    2025

  39. [39]

    Vidal, R. V. V.The future workshop: Democratic problem solving. Technical Report IMM-REP-2005-11, Informatics and Mathematical Modelling, Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, Denmark, 2005. [61]Weber, S.The Success of Open Source. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, 2004

    2005

  40. [40]

    L., Abdelmonsef, A., V arghese, S., and Hors, A

    White, M., Haddad, I., Osborne, C., Y ang, X.-Y. L., Abdelmonsef, A., V arghese, S., and Hors, A. L.The model openness framework: Promoting completeness and openness for reproducibility, transparency, and usability in artificial intelligence.arXiv preprint 2403.13784 (2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  41. [41]

    G., Whittaker, M., and West, S

    Widder, D. G., Whittaker, M., and West, S. M.Why ‘open’ AI systems are actually closed, and why this matters.Nature 635, 8040 (2024), 827–833

    2024

  42. [42]

    open source

    Zewe, A.MIT researchers introduce Boltz-1, a fully open-source model for predicting biomolecular structures. MIT News, Dec. 2024. Accessed: 2025-05-19. Reimagining Open Source and Openness in AI FAccT ’26, June 25–28, 2026, Montreal, QC, Canada Appendix A Terms: Degrees of Openness in AI Systems The categories below reflect commonly referenced terms in cu...

    2024