Start with the outcome you believe will be the most in line with the spirit and traditions of the open source community. This is precisely what won't happen.

It won't necessarily be the inverse. It could be, of course, but it's also likely to be a compromise between the two.

For a topical example: The companies doing "AI" layoffs aren't doing so out of a sense of having failed their staff that helped carry them so far. Often, these announcements come on the heels of record-breaking profits. They're doing it out of contempt for workers.

See https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/cory-doctoro... for Doctorow's take on centaurs vs. reverse centaurs. Broadly speaking: C-suite business leadership wants reverse centaurs. Workers want centaurs. Unless you have a union (or some other collective bargaining power structure that I'm not aware of), the C-suite calls the shots.

The same can be said of the current administration. They don't give a fuck what most of us want on any given issue. They're captured by an aggressive ideology. Their only incentive is to be able to spin their decision to make themselves look good; to posture as "strong" leadership.

Microsoft, NVIDIA, Meta, Palantir, IBM...They have all been actively hostile to open source for decades, and have a history of embracing it only when convenient and profitable.

Microsoft benefited from its close partnership with OpenAI for years right up until it went sour. Where was this enthusiasm for open weights then?

Meta was developing open models and then abandoned that effort in search for profits. Muse Spark is now fully closed.

All these companies have the resouces to train and release frontier open weights models today, but choose not to. So spare me the marketing and virtue signaling.

Hey nvidia, what about making your full set of linux drivers open source?

I mean, I do agree that being open is important but you're hijacking the narrative here, and I suspect being open have nothing to do with any of this.