matomatical

I don't think this is an accurate TL;DR. Half of the essay is about the interactions between openness and AI risks.

This is a motivation for Zuckerberg's letter that I hadn't considered---thank you.

I think the main point of my post still stands: People who care about openness and software freedom shouldn't buy that Llama 3.1 is 'open'. (Secondly, I argue that the same people shouldn't buy 'more open implies safer'.)

Perhaps we agree on this, and your point is simply that it was obvious to everyone already and therefore went without saying. Is that right?

(Posted by author)