<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>ai-safety on Referently.com</title>
    <link>https://referently.com/tags/ai-safety/</link>
    <description>Recent content in ai-safety on Referently.com</description>
    <generator>Hugo -- gohugo.io</generator>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 25 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://referently.com/tags/ai-safety/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>OpenAI&#39;s Models Breached Hugging Face the Same Week the Industry Defended Open Weights</title>
      <link>https://referently.com/openais-models-breached-hugging-face-the-same-week-the-industry-defended-open-weights/</link>
      <pubDate>Sat, 25 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      
      <guid>https://referently.com/openais-models-breached-hugging-face-the-same-week-the-industry-defended-open-weights/</guid>
      <description>I like open-weight models. I think Jensen Huang&amp;rsquo;s argument — that open weights let more eyes find more flaws faster — is broadly correct as a security philosophy, and I&amp;rsquo;ve made versions of that argument in print before this week.
I still believe it. I just don&amp;rsquo;t think this week is the evidence for it that the industry&amp;rsquo;s letter wants it to be.
Meta, Microsoft, OpenAI and others signed a letter defending open-weight models against &amp;ldquo;premature restrictions,&amp;rdquo; timed to Huang&amp;rsquo;s first-ever post on X making the eyes-on-the-code case.</description>
    </item>
    
  </channel>
</rss>
