Track papers across labs, topics, and trends.
Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper critiques the binary framing of AI governance as either open-weight models being risky or restricted access being safe, arguing that restrictions may actually exacerbate risks without proper alternatives. It highlights how the concentration of compute resources can hinder AI development in the Global South, suggesting that access restrictions could deepen global inequalities and push AI proliferation into unsupervised environments. The authors propose a multi-layered governance approach that includes hardware-layer mechanisms and a multilateral institutional framework to ensure safety while promoting equitable access to AI technologies.
Restricting access to AI models could inadvertently increase global inequalities and safety risks, challenging the conventional wisdom on AI governance.
The governance of open-weight artificial intelligence (AI) models has been framed as a binary choice: openness as risk, restriction as safety. This paper challenges that framing, arguing that access restrictions, without governed alternatives, may displace risks rather than reduce them. The global concentration of compute infrastructure makes open-weight models one of the most viable pathways to sovereign AI capacity in the Global South; restricting such access deepens asymmetries while driving proliferation into unsupervised settings. This analysis proposes that hardware-layer governance, including chip-level attestation mechanisms such as FlexHEG, trusted execution environments, confidential computing, and complementary software-layer safeguards, offers a defense-in-depth alternative to the current binary. A threat model taxonomy mapping misuse vectors to hardware, software, institutional, and liability layers illustrates why no single governance mechanism suffices. To operationalize this approach, the paper argues that effective AI governance as a dual-use technology will likely require a multilateral institutional architecture functionally analogous, though not identical, to the role performed by the IAEA in the nuclear domain, with explicit safeguards against the co-option of hardware controls for domestic repression. The relevant policy question is how to make openness safer through technical and institutional design while addressing the transition realities of legacy hardware, attestation at scale, and civil liberties protection.