A new trend has emerged in the rapidly growing field of AI, one that has seen major players like OpenAI, Google, and Microsoft heavily promote their AI models as “open.” These companies use terms like “open AI” to evoke ideals of transparency, collaboration, and shared progress, which are typically associated with open-source software. However, a closer examination reveals that this promotion of “openness” is often more about branding than actual accessibility, leading to the rise of a phenomenon now known as “open-washing.”
Open-washing in AI refers to the practice of companies overstating their commitment to openness while keeping key components of their technology proprietary. This isn’t a novel issue—similar tactics, such as cloud-washing and AI-washing, have been observed in the past. By marketing themselves as “open,” these companies position themselves in a virtuous light, aligning with ideals of shared progress and the greater good. However, this narrative is often more about marketing than a true shift toward a more open or accessible model, especially when billion-dollar corporations remain at the helm.
Despite claims that their generative AI models and large language models (LLMs) are open to all, the reality is that these systems are largely confined within frameworks controlled by the same corporations that develop them. Rather than encouraging true openness or collaboration, these companies are using the notion of openness as a tool to consolidate power and influence, effectively monopolizing the technology. What might seem like a step toward democratizing AI is often nothing more than a polished marketing strategy designed to maintain control over an increasingly powerful industry.
The relationship between open-washing and cloud computing is also significant. Many of the so-called “open” AI models are hosted on cloud platforms, further cementing the control of large cloud providers over these technologies. As cloud providers enter the race with their own LLMs, it becomes clear that these models are not as open as they appear. Instead, the cloud providers are reinforcing their hold over both the infrastructure and the software, with little genuine openness being fostered in the process.