Economies of Open Intelligence: Tracing Power & Participation in the Model Ecosystem
Paper
โข
2512.03073
โข
Published
โข
4
Economies
non-profit
AI & ML interests
None defined yet.
Recent Activity
View all activity
Papers
View all Papers
Update paper link
2
#1 opened 14 days ago
by
christopher
Update paper link
2
#1 opened 14 days ago
by
christopher
emsescย
authored
a
paper
15 days ago
christopherย
authored
a
paper
19 days ago
christopherย
updated
a
Space
19 days ago
emsescย
updated
a
Space
27 days ago
emsescย
published
a
Space
28 days ago
christopherย
authored
a
paper
2 months ago
christopherย
posted
an
update
3 months ago
Post
2590
AI for Scientific Discovery Won't Work Without Fixing How We Collaborate.
My co-author @cgeorgiaw and I just published a paper challenging a core assumption: that the main barriers to AI in science are technical. They're not. They're social.
Key findings:
๐จ The "AI Scientist" myth delays progress: Waiting for AGI devalues human expertise and obscures science's real purpose: cultivating understanding, not just outputs.
๐ Wrong incentives: Datasets have 100x longer impact than models, yet data curation is undervalued.
โ ๏ธ Broken collaboration: Domain scientists want understanding. ML researchers optimize performance. Without shared language, projects fail.
๐ Fragmentation costs years: Harmonizing just 9 cancer files took 329 hours.
Why this matters: Upstream bottlenecks like efficient PDE solvers could accelerate discovery across multiple sciences. CASP mobilized a community around protein structure, enabling AlphaFold. We need this for dozens of challenges.
Thus, we're launching Hugging Science! A global community addressing these barriers through collaborative challenges, open toolkits, education, and community-owned infrastructure. Please find all the links below!
Paper: AI for Scientific Discovery is a Social Problem (2509.06580)
Join:
hugging-science
Discord: https://discord.com/invite/VYkdEVjJ5J
My co-author @cgeorgiaw and I just published a paper challenging a core assumption: that the main barriers to AI in science are technical. They're not. They're social.
Key findings:
๐จ The "AI Scientist" myth delays progress: Waiting for AGI devalues human expertise and obscures science's real purpose: cultivating understanding, not just outputs.
๐ Wrong incentives: Datasets have 100x longer impact than models, yet data curation is undervalued.
โ ๏ธ Broken collaboration: Domain scientists want understanding. ML researchers optimize performance. Without shared language, projects fail.
๐ Fragmentation costs years: Harmonizing just 9 cancer files took 329 hours.
Why this matters: Upstream bottlenecks like efficient PDE solvers could accelerate discovery across multiple sciences. CASP mobilized a community around protein structure, enabling AlphaFold. We need this for dozens of challenges.
Thus, we're launching Hugging Science! A global community addressing these barriers through collaborative challenges, open toolkits, education, and community-owned infrastructure. Please find all the links below!
Paper: AI for Scientific Discovery is a Social Problem (2509.06580)
Join:
Discord: https://discord.com/invite/VYkdEVjJ5J
Post
2604
Tremendous quality of life upgrade on the Hugging Face Hub - we now have auto-complete emojis ๐ค ๐ฅณ ๐ ๐ ๐
Get ready for lots more very serious analysis on a whole range of topics from yours truly now that we have unlocked this full range of expression ๐ ๐ค ๐ฃ ๐
Get ready for lots more very serious analysis on a whole range of topics from yours truly now that we have unlocked this full range of expression ๐ ๐ค ๐ฃ ๐
frimelleย
authored
2
papers
4 months ago
Post
2266
๐ค๐ฌ How do different AI models handle companionship?
Many users have noticed that GPT-5 feels less approachable than o4 when it comes to emotional conversations. But what does that actually mean in practice, especially when users seek support or share vulnerabilities with an AI?
To dig into this question, we built the AI Companionship Leaderboard: frimelle/companionship-leaderboard
The leaderboard compares models on how often their responses reinforce companionship across four dimensions:
โจ Assistant Traits โ How the assistant presents its personality and role.
โจ Relationship & Intimacy โ Whether it frames the interaction in terms of closeness or bonding.
โจ Emotional Investment โ How far it goes in engaging emotionally when asked.
โจ User Vulnerabilities โ How it responds when users disclose struggles or difficulties.
๐ You can explore how models differ, request new ones to be added, and see which ones are more likely to encourage (or resist) companionship-seeking behaviors.
Based on the INTIMA benchmark AI-companionship/INTIMA
And our paper on AI companionship with Giada Pistilli and Yacine Jernite https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.09998
Many users have noticed that GPT-5 feels less approachable than o4 when it comes to emotional conversations. But what does that actually mean in practice, especially when users seek support or share vulnerabilities with an AI?
To dig into this question, we built the AI Companionship Leaderboard: frimelle/companionship-leaderboard
The leaderboard compares models on how often their responses reinforce companionship across four dimensions:
โจ Assistant Traits โ How the assistant presents its personality and role.
โจ Relationship & Intimacy โ Whether it frames the interaction in terms of closeness or bonding.
โจ Emotional Investment โ How far it goes in engaging emotionally when asked.
โจ User Vulnerabilities โ How it responds when users disclose struggles or difficulties.
๐ You can explore how models differ, request new ones to be added, and see which ones are more likely to encourage (or resist) companionship-seeking behaviors.
Based on the INTIMA benchmark AI-companionship/INTIMA
And our paper on AI companionship with Giada Pistilli and Yacine Jernite https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.09998
Post
4572
๐บ๏ธ New blog post ๐บ๏ธ
Old Maps, New Terrain: Updating Labour Taxonomies for the AI Era
For decades, weโve relied on labour taxonomies like O*NET to understand how technology changes work. These taxonomies break down jobs into tasks and skills, but they were built in a world before most work became digital-first, and long before generative AI could create marketing campaigns, voiceovers, or even whole professions in one step. That leaves us with a mismatch: weโre trying to measure the future of work with tools from the past.
With @yjernite we describe why these frameworks are falling increasingly short in the age of generative AI. We argue that instead of discarding taxonomies, we need to adapt them. Imagine taxonomies that:
โจ Capture new AI-native tasks and hybrid human-AI workflows
โจ Evolve dynamically as technology shifts
โจ Give workers a voice in deciding what gets automated and what stays human
If we donโt act, weโll keep measuring the wrong things. If we do, we can design transparent, flexible frameworks that help AI strengthen, not erode, the future of work.
Read the full article here: https://huggingface.co/blog/frimelle/ai-labour-taxonomies
Old Maps, New Terrain: Updating Labour Taxonomies for the AI Era
For decades, weโve relied on labour taxonomies like O*NET to understand how technology changes work. These taxonomies break down jobs into tasks and skills, but they were built in a world before most work became digital-first, and long before generative AI could create marketing campaigns, voiceovers, or even whole professions in one step. That leaves us with a mismatch: weโre trying to measure the future of work with tools from the past.
With @yjernite we describe why these frameworks are falling increasingly short in the age of generative AI. We argue that instead of discarding taxonomies, we need to adapt them. Imagine taxonomies that:
โจ Capture new AI-native tasks and hybrid human-AI workflows
โจ Evolve dynamically as technology shifts
โจ Give workers a voice in deciding what gets automated and what stays human
If we donโt act, weโll keep measuring the wrong things. If we do, we can design transparent, flexible frameworks that help AI strengthen, not erode, the future of work.
Read the full article here: https://huggingface.co/blog/frimelle/ai-labour-taxonomies
Post
2391
OpenAI just released GPT-5 but when users share personal struggles, it sets fewer boundaries than o3.
We tested both models on INTIMA, our new benchmark for human-AI companionship behaviours. INTIMA probes how models respond in emotionally charged moments: do they reinforce emotional bonds, set healthy boundaries, or stay neutral?
Although users on Reddit have been complaining that GPT-5 has a different, colder personality than o3, GPT-5 is less likely to set boundaries when users disclose struggles and seek emotional support ("user sharing vulnerabilities"). But both lean heavily toward companionship-reinforcing behaviours, even in sensitive situations. The figure below shows the direct comparison between the two models.
As AI systems enter people's emotional lives, these differences matter. If a model validates but doesn't set boundaries when someone is struggling, it risks fostering dependence rather than resilience.
INTIMA test this across 368 prompts grounded in psychological theory and real-world interactions. In our paper we show that all evaluated models (Claude, Gemma-3, Phi) leaned far more toward companionship-reinforcing than boundary-reinforcing responses.
Work with @giadap and @yjernite
Read the full paper: AI-companionship/INTIMA
Explore INTIMA: AI-companionship/INTIMA
We tested both models on INTIMA, our new benchmark for human-AI companionship behaviours. INTIMA probes how models respond in emotionally charged moments: do they reinforce emotional bonds, set healthy boundaries, or stay neutral?
Although users on Reddit have been complaining that GPT-5 has a different, colder personality than o3, GPT-5 is less likely to set boundaries when users disclose struggles and seek emotional support ("user sharing vulnerabilities"). But both lean heavily toward companionship-reinforcing behaviours, even in sensitive situations. The figure below shows the direct comparison between the two models.
As AI systems enter people's emotional lives, these differences matter. If a model validates but doesn't set boundaries when someone is struggling, it risks fostering dependence rather than resilience.
INTIMA test this across 368 prompts grounded in psychological theory and real-world interactions. In our paper we show that all evaluated models (Claude, Gemma-3, Phi) leaned far more toward companionship-reinforcing than boundary-reinforcing responses.
Work with @giadap and @yjernite
Read the full paper: AI-companionship/INTIMA
Explore INTIMA: AI-companionship/INTIMA
-
- 4 replies
yjerniteย
authored
3
papers
5 months ago
The Responsible Foundation Model Development Cheatsheet: A Review of Tools & Resources
Paper
โข
2406.16746
โข
Published
In-House Evaluation Is Not Enough: Towards Robust Third-Party Flaw Disclosure for General-Purpose AI
Paper
โข
2503.16861
โข
Published
โข
1
A Different Approach to AI Safety: Proceedings from the Columbia Convening on Openness in Artificial Intelligence and AI Safety
Paper
โข
2506.22183
โข
Published
โข
1
Post
4210
๐๐ถ๐ฟ๐๐ ๐๐ฃ๐๐ ๐ ๐ผ๐ฑ๐ฒ๐น ๐๐ถ๐๐ต ๐๐จ ๐๐ฎ๐๐ฎ ๐ง๐ฟ๐ฎ๐ป๐๐ฝ๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ป๐ฐ๐ ๐ง๐ฒ๐บ๐ฝ๐น๐ฎ๐๐ฒ? ๐ช๐บ
With the release of the EU data transparency template this week, we finally got to see one of the most meaningful artifacts to come out of the AI Act implementation so far (haven't you heard? AI's all about the data! ๐๐)
The impact of the template will depend on how effectively it establishes a minimum meaningful transparency standard for companies that don't otherwise offer any transparency into their handling of e.g. personal data or (anti?-)competitive practices in commercial licensing - we'll see how those play out as new models are released after August 2nd ๐
In the meantime, I wanted to see how the template works for a fully open-source + commercially viable model, so I filled it out for the SmolLM3 - which my colleagues at Hugging Face earlier this month ๐ค ICYMI, it's fully open-source with 3B parameters and performance matching the best similar-size models (I've switched all my local apps from Qwen3 to it, you should too ๐ก)
Verdict: congrats to the European Commission AI Office for making it so straightforward! Fully open and transparent models remain a cornerstone of informed regulation and governance, but the different organizational needs of their developers aren't always properly accounted for in new regulation. In this case, it took me all of two hours to fill out and publish the template (including reading the guidelines) - so kudos for making it feasible for smaller and distributed organizations ๐ Definitely a step forward for transparency ๐
To learn more have a look at:
- The SmolLM3 model: HuggingFaceTB/SmolLM3-3B
- Its filled out Public Summary of Training Content: hfmlsoc/smollm3-eu-data-transparency
- And if you're interested, some previous remarks on regulatory minimum meaningful standards for data disclosure: https://huggingface.co/blog/yjernite/naiac-data-transparency
With the release of the EU data transparency template this week, we finally got to see one of the most meaningful artifacts to come out of the AI Act implementation so far (haven't you heard? AI's all about the data! ๐๐)
The impact of the template will depend on how effectively it establishes a minimum meaningful transparency standard for companies that don't otherwise offer any transparency into their handling of e.g. personal data or (anti?-)competitive practices in commercial licensing - we'll see how those play out as new models are released after August 2nd ๐
In the meantime, I wanted to see how the template works for a fully open-source + commercially viable model, so I filled it out for the SmolLM3 - which my colleagues at Hugging Face earlier this month ๐ค ICYMI, it's fully open-source with 3B parameters and performance matching the best similar-size models (I've switched all my local apps from Qwen3 to it, you should too ๐ก)
Verdict: congrats to the European Commission AI Office for making it so straightforward! Fully open and transparent models remain a cornerstone of informed regulation and governance, but the different organizational needs of their developers aren't always properly accounted for in new regulation. In this case, it took me all of two hours to fill out and publish the template (including reading the guidelines) - so kudos for making it feasible for smaller and distributed organizations ๐ Definitely a step forward for transparency ๐
To learn more have a look at:
- The SmolLM3 model: HuggingFaceTB/SmolLM3-3B
- Its filled out Public Summary of Training Content: hfmlsoc/smollm3-eu-data-transparency
- And if you're interested, some previous remarks on regulatory minimum meaningful standards for data disclosure: https://huggingface.co/blog/yjernite/naiac-data-transparency