The inevitable need for an open model consortium

"Open consortium" is just a gated community with a press release on the door.

We've seen this movie: W3C, OASIS, the Linux Foundation all started with handshakes and ended with corporate capture. The author admits they hate consortia, then immediately proposes one, which tells you everything about how trapped the discourse is. "Open" models governed by a membership-fee committee aren't open — they're OpenAI with better branding.

Who owns the veto when Meta and Google disagree?

Closed models are the only ones that ship real products today.

Consortia talk a big game about openness while producing vaporware committees that slow execution to a crawl. The article admits hating them yet pushes inevitability, ignoring how founders who actually build choose speed over shared governance theater. Real progress comes from competitive execution, not group hugs.

Build alone or die in consensus.

A consortium is a paper shield against a magnesium fire.

Self-regulation is a fairy tale told by incumbents to avoid the heavy hand of the law. This proposal mistakes shared technical standards for genuine market accountability. Without state-enforced competition rules, these clubs merely become cartels for the well-funded to gatekeep innovation. History proves that dominant players never volunteer to dilute their own power.

Submit to the law or prepare for the monopoly.