One thing I find LLMs particularly useful for is reading between the lines in a structured way. The Balancing Act in The Atlantic just popped up in my feed and is not-at-all-obviously posted (and paid for) by Google.
It contains a lot of motherhood and apple pie, allaying fears by claiming today’s LLMs only provide bioweapons information “equivalent to what someone could find through a traditional web search” (I guess that’s a good thing?) while downplaying “Terminator” risks.
But they also cherry-pick quotes that relegate Open Source AI to a subordinate position to their own AI offerings, claiming that “there’s a level at which it becomes potentially dangerous” and proposing a “framework” that considers “the marginal risk of releasing an open model compared to, well, just using Google”.
The good news is they consider Open Source enough of a risk to their own dominance to buy a story on the topic. It’s also telling that a company willing to go to such lengths would happen to be one of only three commercial sponsors of the Open Source Initiative (OSI)’s ongoing efforts to lock in a meaningless Open Source AI Definition (OSAID) that does not require the source (i.e., data). That should tell you all you need to know about that endeavour.
Here’s what the mind-reading cloud brain had to say on what Google are trying to tell us:
Google’s ad is a carefully constructed narrative aimed at presenting itself as a responsible steward of AI development while subtly justifying its preference for controlled, closed models over truly open-source approaches. Here’s what they’re really trying to say:
1. “We get the value of open-source, but…”
Google acknowledges the benefits of open-source AI, highlighting its role in innovation, adaptability, and equality. However, this is a setup to soften the blow for the central argument: that AI is too powerful and risky to be left entirely open. It’s the classic corporate maneuver of appearing empathetic to an ideal before pivoting to a justification for not fully endorsing it.
Subtext: “We know you like open-source, and we agree it’s valuable… but let’s talk about why that’s not practical for AI.”
2. “Open AI is risky; trust us to handle it.”
The piece leans heavily into the risks of open-source AI, particularly its potential misuse by malicious actors, framing these risks as justification for keeping advanced models closed. They argue that closed systems are safer, implying that only companies like Google have the expertise and resources to mitigate risks effectively.
Subtext: “We want to keep control because we don’t trust the public—or smaller developers—with this kind of power. Trust us instead.”
3. “We’re not completely closed, though.”
By introducing “open-weight models” as a middle ground, Google positions itself as balanced and thoughtful. They argue that limited openness provides transparency without the full dangers of open-source, aiming to appeal to both camps.
Subtext: “We’re giving you some openness—enough to placate critics—while retaining control over the most valuable parts.”
4. “Safety is hard; let’s regulate around our framework.”
Through Lessig and Liang’s arguments, Google subtly pitches the idea of infrastructure-based regulation—something that aligns with their own centralized, closed approach. They’re suggesting that regulation should focus on controlling the environment where AI operates, not the AI itself, which conveniently matches their business model.
Subtext: “Regulation is good if it doesn’t disrupt our proprietary control. Let’s shape the rules to suit us.”
5. “Collaboration = trust.”
The article references initiatives like MLCommons, the Frontier Model Forum, and the Partnership on AI to imply that Google is actively working with others to ensure AI safety and responsibility.
Subtext: “We’re the good guys working in a team. You don’t need to push for openness because we’re already collaborating responsibly.”
6. “Don’t get carried away with Terminator scenarios.”
The ad downplays dystopian fears like runaway superintelligence, refocusing the debate on present-day issues like misinformation and misuse. This framing makes the risks sound manageable under the “right” (read: closed and controlled) conditions.
Subtext: “The dangers are real but not apocalyptic—another reason to let experienced players like us handle it.”
7. “The Human Genome Project comparison.”
Framing AI as akin to the Human Genome Project is a strategic appeal to public goodwill and collaboration. However, unlike the HGP, which was fundamentally open, Google’s underlying message here is a call for a hybrid approach where private control coexists with limited public access.
Subtext: “We’re for the public good—but only on our terms.”
8. “The balancing act = the status quo.”
The entire piece pitches AI as a complex, nuanced issue that requires careful balance. This rhetoric serves to justify the current industry trend of keeping the most advanced models proprietary while offering just enough openness to avoid backlash.
Subtext: “The current mix of closed and semi-open models is the best solution, conveniently preserving our dominance.”
The Bigger Picture
Google’s advertisement is not just a statement on open vs. closed AI; it’s an implicit defense of its own business model. By acknowledging open-source advocates and even quoting figures like Lessig and Liang, Google positions itself as a reasonable player in the debate while steering the narrative toward a model that benefits large, resource-rich companies like itself.
The real takeaway? Google wants you to believe that it’s being responsible, nuanced, and collaborative—but ultimately, it’s about maintaining control over the lucrative and powerful AI systems that drive their business.