Microsoft, Meta, Nvidia, OpenAI, and Palantir have a message for Washington 58%

By Brent D. Griffiths0% Kelsey Vlamis65%

7/25/2026, 12:41:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 27 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Hasty Generalization, and Optimism Bias, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 13.6% saturation with 124 hits. Analysis detected 1,328 faulty-reasoning hits from 915 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 54.4% and a BS Rank of 58% (9,363 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 57.20% of the article peer group.

Some of the biggest names in tech organized a full-throated defense of open-weight AI models. 
On Friday, over two dozen companies, organizations, and platforms released an open letter. 
Among the signatories are Nvidia , Microsoft, Meta, OpenAI, and Mistral. 
In his first-ever post on X, Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang called attention to how some of the biggest names in AI and tech are rallying together to defend the future of open-weight AI models. 
"AI will transform every industry, power every company, and be built by every country," Huang wrote on X. 
"Open models strengthen safety and cybersecurity, accelerate innovation and diffusion, and enable sovereignty." 
On Friday, Nvidia, Microsoft , Meta, OpenAI, Mistral, and others signed an open letter that urges US policymakers not to crack down on open-weight AI models. 
For my first post, I’m sharing a letter @NVIDIA signed on why open models matter. 
AI will transform every industry, power every company, and be built by every country. 
Open models strengthen safety and cybersecurity, accelerate innovation and diffusion, and enable sovereignty.… pic.twitter.com/t02bi51N4C 
 Jensen Huang (@JensenHuang) July 24, 2026 
Their statement amounts to a full-throated endorsement of open-weight AI models at a time when top Trump administration officials have suggested they might take action against Moonshot AI, the creator of the Kimi K3 , the world's most powerful open-weight AI model. 
"Our AI leadership will be judged not by one frontier AI model, but by whether the United States builds a strong, open ecosystem that diffuses into every sector," the signatories wrote in the letter. 
When the letter was initially published, the two biggest absences were OpenAI and Anthropic, widely viewed as the world leaders in the frontier AI model race. 
However, by Friday evening, OpenAI appeared to have also signed on, as the company was added to the list of signatories published by Microsoft . 
OpenAI did not respond to a request for comment about signing onto the letter. 
Unlike Anthropic's Fable 5 and OpenAI's GPT-5.6-Sol, Kimi K3, as an open-source model, will soon be available for download and customization. 
Both companies would stand to gain if the US government either directly blocks or significantly impedes China-based open model makers like Moonshot AI. 
Like Anthropic, Google also did not sign the letter. 
OpenAI CEO Sam Altman said earlier on Friday he was "glad to see" the support for open weight models. 
"i want the US to win in AI both in open source and proprietary models," Altman wrote on X. 
Under his post, a community note, which was still present after OpenAI was added to the signatories list, claimed OpenAI had "refused" to sign the letter. 
While SpaceX is not listed as a signatory, Elon Musk later signaled his support for the message. 
"This has my full support," Musk wrote on X, quoting Huang's tweet. 
"Jensen is right." 
While the letter does not mention Moonshot specifically, its authors portray the broader development of open AI models as akin to how open software revolutionized computing in the 1980s. 
"Open source did more than lower the cost of software; it created a shared foundation of knowledge on which generations of American engineers and entrepreneurs built their institutional sovereignty," they wrote. 
China has thus far dominated the development of open-weight AI models, despite the US' legendary reputation in the creation of open-source software. 
Two of the biggest modern names in open software, Mozilla and the Linux Foundation, also signed onto the letter. 
In the US, Nvidia's Nemotron model is one of the largest open weight models, though its performance pales in comparison to rivals like Kimi K3. 
Alexandr Wang , chief AI officer of Meta, has said that his Meta Superintelligence Labs team remains committed to open models and is developing an open variant of its Muse Spark model. 
Reflection AI, a startup founded by former Google DeepMind researchers, is also preparing its own open model. 
On Wednesday, Michael Kratsios, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, publicly accused Moonshot of developing Kimi K3 by distilling the model from Anthropic's Fable 5. 
Distillation, the process of training a less powerful model on the outputs of a more powerful one, is a controversial but commonly used practice in AI development. 
At the same time, companies like Anthropic have accused their Chinese counterparts of abusing the distillation process to the point of essentially ripping off their intellectual property. 
Earlier this week, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent suggested that the US could sanction companies that engage in such distillation, which he compared to theft. 
The letter defends the distillation process more broadly, but it does open the door to the possibility that companies like Nvidia, Microsoft, and Meta would support a crackdown on those proven to be bad actors. 
"Unlawful efforts to extract value from closed models raise legitimate concerns," they wrote. 
"Those concerns should be addressed through targeted legal and commercial frameworks rather than sweeping restrictions on techniques that play an important role in AI innovation." 
In total, a combination of 32 companies, organizations, and platforms signed on to the letter as of Friday evening. 
They are the American Innovators Network, Andreessen Horowitz, Arcee AI, Arena, Black Forest Labs, Box, Cisco, Cohere, CrowdStrike, Dell Technologies, DoorDash, Emergence Capital, Fireworks AI, GitHub, Hugging Face, IBM, The Linux Foundation, Mariana Minerals, Meta, Microsoft, Mistral, Mozilla, Nvidia, OpenAI, Palantir, Palo Alto Networks, Perplexity, Reflection, Replit, ServiceNow, Telnyx, and Y Combinator. 
Read the original article on Business Insider 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 6.9%Brent D. Griffiths: 8.3%Business Insider: 2.5%Confirmation Bias6.9%This article: 0.0%Brent D. Griffiths: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 3.3%Brent D. Griffiths: 0.0%Business Insider: 3.4%Availability Heuristic3.3%This article: 5.5%Brent D. Griffiths: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.7%Representativeness Heuristic5.5%This article: 0.0%Brent D. Griffiths: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.9%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brent D. Griffiths: 6.8%Business Insider: 1.9%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brent D. Griffiths: 12.9%Business Insider: 5.0%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Brent D. Griffiths: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 2.7%Brent D. Griffiths: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.8%Status Quo Bias2.7%This article: 0.0%Brent D. Griffiths: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 8.5%Brent D. Griffiths: 3.5%Business Insider: 3.1%Optimism Bias8.5%This article: 6.2%Brent D. Griffiths: 0.0%Business Insider: 1.6%Pessimism Bias6.2%This article: 13.4%Brent D. Griffiths: 1.2%Business Insider: 4.6%Negativity Bias13.4%This article: 8.3%Brent D. Griffiths: 5.3%Business Insider: 2.0%Self-Serving Bias8.3%This article: 0.0%Brent D. Griffiths: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.6%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Brent D. Griffiths: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brent D. Griffiths: 4.8%Business Insider: 0.8%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 7.5%Brent D. Griffiths: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias7.5%This article: 6.9%Brent D. Griffiths: 5.7%Business Insider: 3.0%Halo Effect6.9%This article: 0.0%Brent D. Griffiths: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Brent D. Griffiths: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 2.7%Brent D. Griffiths: 1.4%Business Insider: 1.3%Recency Bias2.7%This article: 0.0%Brent D. Griffiths: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Brent D. Griffiths: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 6.1%Brent D. Griffiths: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.3%Ad Hominem6.1%This article: 0.0%Brent D. Griffiths: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 13.6%Brent D. Griffiths: 1.8%Business Insider: 3.3%Appeal to Authority13.6%This article: 2.7%Brent D. Griffiths: 2.7%Business Insider: 1.2%False Dilemma2.7%This article: 3.8%Brent D. Griffiths: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.6%Slippery Slope3.8%This article: 0.0%Brent D. Griffiths: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 11.6%Brent D. Griffiths: 3.2%Business Insider: 4.0%Hasty Generalization11.6%This article: 0.0%Brent D. Griffiths: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 6.2%Brent D. Griffiths: 7.5%Business Insider: 0.7%Bandwagon6.2%This article: 2.6%Brent D. Griffiths: 7.7%Business Insider: 3.1%Appeal to Emotion2.6%This article: 3.0%Brent D. Griffiths: 3.2%Business Insider: 0.7%Begging the Question3.0%This article: 4.6%Brent D. Griffiths: 0.0%Business Insider: 2.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)4.6%This article: 0.0%Brent D. Griffiths: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Brent D. Griffiths: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.2%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Brent D. Griffiths: 1.1%Business Insider: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Brent D. Griffiths: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 3.4%Brent D. Griffiths: 0.0%Business Insider: 3.6%Anecdotal3.4%This article: 0.0%Brent D. Griffiths: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 1.4%Brent D. Griffiths: 0.0%Business Insider: 1.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)1.4%This article: 0.0%Brent D. Griffiths: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Brent D. Griffiths: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Brent D. Griffiths: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Brent D. Griffiths: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Brent D. Griffiths: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 6.3%Brent D. Griffiths: 2.2%Business Insider: 1.2%Unattributed Quote6.3%This article: 1.6%Brent D. Griffiths: 3.0%Business Insider: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection1.6%This article: 1.6%Brent D. Griffiths: 3.4%Business Insider: 3.3%Biased Writer Voice1.6%This article: 3.7%Brent D. Griffiths: 0.0%Business Insider: 1.3%Indoctrination3.7%This article: 0.0%Brent D. Griffiths: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brent D. Griffiths: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.8%Brent D. Griffiths: 0.0%Business Insider: 1.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.8%

915 words analyzed.

Speakers

5speakers23%attributed speech707writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageJensen Huang • 34 words • 0.0% coverageJensen Huang • 18 words • 100.0% coverageJensen Huang • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageJensen Huang • 14 words • 0.0% coverageJensen Huang • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 42 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageSam Altman • 19 words • 0.0% coverageSam Altman • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageElon Musk • 12 words • 0.0% coverageElon Musk • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageAlexandr Wang • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageMichael Kratsios • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 52 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Michael Kratsios

100%flagged-word coverage
30 attributed words14% of attributed speech87% writer coverage
0%5.0%10.0%Unattributed Quote-5.7 ptsWriter: 5.7%Michael Kratsios: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-4.8 ptsWriter: 4.8%Michael Kratsios: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-2.1 ptsWriter: 2.1%Michael Kratsios: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-2.1 ptsWriter: 2.1%Michael Kratsios: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -1.0 ptsWriter: 1.0%Michael Kratsios: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.