arXiv subjects

Maximilian Gahntz

Publications and source records attributed to Maximilian Gahntz.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Reimagining Open Source and Openness in AI: Co-Creating Responsible Technological Futures

Debates over open source and openness in artificial intelligence have intensified as policymakers, researchers, and practitioners grapple with how foundation models should be developed and governed to balance innovation, accountability, and public interest. However, there has been limited empirical work examining how diverse stakeholders collectively understand and negotiate responsible openness in AI, particularly through participatory processes that extend beyond industry-led definitions and frameworks. This paper presents findings from a multi-sectoral workshop grounded in futures thinking and participatory design methods. The workshop generated co-created visions of desirable futures and the role of AI, alongside a set of action pathways and a research roadmap focused on responsible open source and openness in AI. This paper makes three key contributions. First, it empirically documents the co-created visions, actions, and research priorities. Second, it identifies four core tensions that emerged as participants translated high-level aspirations into concrete actions, revealing conflicting interpretations of openness regarding its purpose (as an end or a means), its scope (expansion versus meaningful access), and its operation (mandatory versus conditional, sufficient versus dependent on governance and use). These tensions illustrate that responsible openness is not a singular technical solution, but a negotiated sociotechnical project shaped by values, positionalities, and priorities. Third, the paper advances methodological approaches in AI governance by demonstrating how participatory futures methods can surface plural visions, actions, and research priorities that extend beyond dominant, largely corporate, narratives, offering empirical insight into how openness, power, and accountability are negotiated in practice.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

Quality Assessment of Public Summary of Training Content for GPAI models required by AI Act Article 53(1)(d)

The AI Act's Article 53(1)(d) requires providers of general-purpose AI (GPAI) models to publish a sufficiently detailed public summary about the content used for training based on a template provided by the AI Office. The stated goal of this obligation is to increase transparency regarding the data used for training GPAI models, and to enable relevant stakeholders to exercise their rights, especially regarding IP, copyright, and data protection. This paper provides a quality assessment framework to assess the public summary across two key dimensions: \textit{transparency} regarding information being provided in a clear, comprehensive, and sufficiently detailed manner; and \textit{usefulness} regarding whether the provision of the document and the contents can be effectively utilised by stakeholders to carry out rights related actions. This framework enables identification of key issues in public summaries, and provides a structured and research-based method to compare practices across public summaries and providers. It also enables authorities such as the AI Office to identify potential issues that could emerge and provides actionable recommendations and guidelines for providers to develop public summaries with high quality. The paper provides an assessment of 5 public summaries published as of 12th January 2026 which were found through an exhaustive search process. To disseminate these findings as a public resource, the paper also describes the development of a website where the assessments, outcomes, and methodologies will be shared.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2025

Towards Best Practices for Open Datasets for LLM Training

Many AI companies are training their large language models (LLMs) on data without the permission of the copyright owners. The permissibility of doing so varies by jurisdiction: in countries like the EU and Japan, this is allowed under certain restrictions, while in the United States, the legal landscape is more ambiguous. Regardless of the legal status, concerns from creative producers have led to several high-profile copyright lawsuits, and the threat of litigation is commonly cited as a reason for the recent trend towards minimizing the information shared about training datasets by both corporate and public interest actors. This trend in limiting data information causes harm by hindering transparency, accountability, and innovation in the broader ecosystem by denying researchers, auditors, and impacted individuals access to the information needed to understand AI models. While this could be mitigated by training language models on open access and public domain data, at the time of writing, there are no such models (trained at a meaningful scale) due to the substantial technical and sociological challenges in assembling the necessary corpus. These challenges include incomplete and unreliable metadata, the cost and complexity of digitizing physical records, and the diverse set of legal and technical skills required to ensure relevance and responsibility in a quickly changing landscape. Building towards a future where AI systems can be trained on openly licensed data that is responsibly curated and governed requires collaboration across legal, technical, and policy domains, along with investments in metadata standards, digitization, and fostering a culture of openness.

cs.CY↗