On the Societal Impact of Open Foundation Models
Stanford CRFM's policy paper proposes a rigorous framework for assessing the *marginal* risk of open-weight foundation models relative to closed models and pre-existing technologies.
Ask this paper
Six-component framework: Threat identification, existing defenses, marginal risk attribution, counterfactual impact, and uncertainty articulation are among the components the authors use to structure risk analysis.
Seven misuse vectors: Applies the framework to biosecurity, cybersecurity, disinformation, CSAM, non-consensual imagery, phishing, and voice cloning, finding that existing studies rarely assess marginal risk rigorously.
Benefits matter too: Catalogs benefits of open models - distributed decision-making, innovation, reduced market concentration - that closed-model debates often omit.
Policy takeaway: Argues policymakers should demand grounded evidence of marginal risk rather than assuming closed releases are inherently safer, and that open weights alone are not sufficient for full scientific transparency.