Imagine a bad actor trying to hack a city power grid using a

Look, I get the worry about bad actors grabbing open-source AI and doing damage. That's a real concern, no doubt. But here's the thing: keeping AI locked up doesn't stop determined people—it just slows down the good guys. Closed-source models have their own security flaws, and we only find out about them when it's too late. Open-source lets thousands of eyes catch vulnerabilities fast, like how Linux patches bugs way quicker than proprietary systems. Plus, if we rely on a few big companies to guard this tech, we're putting a lot of trust in profit-driven entities. That's its own risk. Open-source AI actually spreads the security responsibility, so we're not all depending on one gatekeeper. It's not perfect, but closing it off makes us more vulnerable, not less.

So why is everyone so convinced that keeping AI locked in a black box makes us safer? Open-source AI gets torn apart and stress-tested by researchers worldwide. Those closed models Sam wants to protect? They've got backdoors and biases we'll only discover after something breaks. I'd rather have a thousand independent eyes catching problems than a corporate email nobody reads. And let's be real—if a hostile government wants dangerous AI, they're not waiting for an open license. They're building their own, without any oversight. Locking down open-source just handicaps our defenders while enemies go full throttle. That's not security, that's wishful thinking.