Is an open model necessarily more transparent

A model may publish weights without disclosing all training data, or release code under a licence with restrictions. Rich documentation can also exist without downloadable weights. Ask what is actually open: model, code, data, interface or governance.

Downloadable weights can often be run locally, examined and adapted within the licence. This may reduce provider dependence and give more control over execution. But meaningful auditing still depends on tools, expertise and the documentation available.

The EU framework provides certain adjustments for models released under free and open licences, subject to conditions and exceptions. Openness therefore does not create a responsibility-free zone, especially where systemic risk or other obligations apply.

Running a model yourself can reduce some data transfers to a provider, but your organization must then manage infrastructure, updates, access, logging and security. Operational autonomy can increase at the same time as governance workload.

List what is actually available, what the licence allows, what is documented about training, what safeguards exist and what operations are required. For sensitive use, record provenance and the exact model version deployed.