Tech Visionary Says the Big AI Labs Don’t Get What People Want
Tim O’Reilly built a publishing empire that AI is helping to destroy. Yet he loves AI—as long as it’s open source.
Tim O’Reilly’s yardstick for measuring the worth of a company, person, or society has long been create more value than you capture. It’s no surprise that O’Reilly— publisher , internet pioneer , VC , conference organizer, and dispenser of tech wisdom —is applying that metric to the way people design and use AI. Specifically, he’s pushing for a future where open-source AI is an elixir for the masses. He worries that, like Microsoft in the 1990s, today’s hyperscalers are trying to lock users into their products. So he is promoting efforts to open-source AI technology—not only making critical technical details such as neural-net weights accessible, but unlocking the whole stack of an AI system, giving control to designers and users.
O’Reilly sees AI as a new creative medium, which he uses extensively—and even has a blog about his chats with it. During our conversation, we discovered that we disagree about AI’s role in producing original content. Guess who took which side.
STEVEN LEVY: You are all in on open-source AI. Make your case.
TIM O'REILLY: First, let's make sure we're talking about the same thing. When most people talk about open-source AI, they're really just talking about open-weight models. It’s much bigger than that. In the ’90s, when everybody else was focused on open-source licenses, I was like, “No, no, it's about the architecture of the system. Does it enable participation?”
The big labs are reading the future wrong. They have told themselves a narrative where having the biggest, best model is the key to the future. Big models like Claude are optimizing for particular use cases, but they aren't necessarily the use cases that people want . I want to embed my own special sauce. The most important thing is having a clean separation between the model, the harness , and the application. And right now we're not getting that. They built an architecture of control rather than an architecture of freedom and participation, so they have the ability to track you.
Isn’t it against the interests of big companies to give up control?
