Rebecca Mbaya just dismantled the illusion behind so-called “open” AI. While the cartel of major labs releases open-weight models wrapped in open-source branding, Rebecca shows exactly how this curated generosity hides structural control, and deepens global dependency.
She doesn’t just critique the tech; she reveals the power dynamics, the strategic ambiguity, and the linguistic sleight of hand that props up this illusion. And she does it through a lens the industry too often ignores.
For contrast, Google’s Gemma 3 (my personal favorite open‑weight model) ships not only open weights but also source code, inference tools, and technical reports under their custom Gemma license. You can audit the architecture, fine-tune it, and build on it, though there are some usage conditions and enforcement rights retained by Google. That’s access with transparency, not just brand polish.
But as Rebecca powerfully points out, even this level of openness remains inaccessible to most. Where she lives in Congo, no one has a 16GB GPU. The models may be “open,” but the door only opens for those with the resources to walk through. In that light, so-called democratization becomes another layer of exclusion, a luxury openness, gated by poverty.
This is the kind of writing that makes you see differently.
Read it. Share it. Then ask yourself:
Who gets to build intelligence, and who just gets to borrow it?
Absolutely! What’s often branded as “open” is only accessible if you already have the right hardware, infrastructure, or proximity to power. Even the more transparent models still require privilege to use meaningfully. That’s why so much of this openness feels more like a performance than a shift in power.
And the fact that many still don’t question it says a lot about how deeply we’ve accepted these imbalances as normal.
Rebecca, the thesis brilliantly laid out. It sounds like open source snake oil. Open AI is already being monetized with subscriptions, and I can’t see ads being far off.
How Africa gets in on this AI revolution remains an unanswered question in my mind. As you point out true open source isn’t likely to happen, at least not anytime soon.
Excellent, well researched, insightful read. Thank you.
Thank you for this Kevin! And I love that phrase: “open source snake oil.”
It captures the performance perfectly.
I think what unsettles me most is how easily even critical thinkers are getting pulled into this narrative. As if we’ve lowered the bar for openness so far, we now celebrate access without agency.
And yes, the Africa question… still hanging. Maybe the question should be: what kind of AI revolution are we even trying to get in on? If it’s one built on curated openness, digital dependency, and extraction masked as empowerment, then we need to be asking different questions altogether.
I believe part of the answer lies in not waiting for “true open source” to arrive, but in interrogating what’s already available, rethinking what our openness looks like, and resisting the idea that we must innovate within someone else’s frame.
It’s complex yes, but clarity like yours keeps the conversation honest!
Everyone needs to read this.
Rebecca Mbaya just dismantled the illusion behind so-called “open” AI. While the cartel of major labs releases open-weight models wrapped in open-source branding, Rebecca shows exactly how this curated generosity hides structural control, and deepens global dependency.
She doesn’t just critique the tech; she reveals the power dynamics, the strategic ambiguity, and the linguistic sleight of hand that props up this illusion. And she does it through a lens the industry too often ignores.
For contrast, Google’s Gemma 3 (my personal favorite open‑weight model) ships not only open weights but also source code, inference tools, and technical reports under their custom Gemma license. You can audit the architecture, fine-tune it, and build on it, though there are some usage conditions and enforcement rights retained by Google. That’s access with transparency, not just brand polish.
But as Rebecca powerfully points out, even this level of openness remains inaccessible to most. Where she lives in Congo, no one has a 16GB GPU. The models may be “open,” but the door only opens for those with the resources to walk through. In that light, so-called democratization becomes another layer of exclusion, a luxury openness, gated by poverty.
This is the kind of writing that makes you see differently.
Read it. Share it. Then ask yourself:
Who gets to build intelligence, and who just gets to borrow it?
Absolutely! What’s often branded as “open” is only accessible if you already have the right hardware, infrastructure, or proximity to power. Even the more transparent models still require privilege to use meaningfully. That’s why so much of this openness feels more like a performance than a shift in power.
And the fact that many still don’t question it says a lot about how deeply we’ve accepted these imbalances as normal.
I appreciate you for engaging with the piece!
Rebecca, the thesis brilliantly laid out. It sounds like open source snake oil. Open AI is already being monetized with subscriptions, and I can’t see ads being far off.
How Africa gets in on this AI revolution remains an unanswered question in my mind. As you point out true open source isn’t likely to happen, at least not anytime soon.
Excellent, well researched, insightful read. Thank you.
Thank you for this Kevin! And I love that phrase: “open source snake oil.”
It captures the performance perfectly.
I think what unsettles me most is how easily even critical thinkers are getting pulled into this narrative. As if we’ve lowered the bar for openness so far, we now celebrate access without agency.
And yes, the Africa question… still hanging. Maybe the question should be: what kind of AI revolution are we even trying to get in on? If it’s one built on curated openness, digital dependency, and extraction masked as empowerment, then we need to be asking different questions altogether.
I believe part of the answer lies in not waiting for “true open source” to arrive, but in interrogating what’s already available, rethinking what our openness looks like, and resisting the idea that we must innovate within someone else’s frame.
It’s complex yes, but clarity like yours keeps the conversation honest!