Here’s what’s on our plate today:

• 🚀 Today, we’ll unpack GPT-5 buzz, Grok-2 open-sourcing, and why it matters.

• 🗳️ All-open, all-closed, or hybrid models—cast your vote on the future of AI.

• 📰 NYT vs. OpenAI row, and Google’s AI Search defense.

• 🛠️ Cleanvoice AI, Docugami summaries, and Pika Labs lip-sync magic.

Let’s dive in. No floaties needed…

The Laboratory

Open or closed? How the AI software debate shapes our future

OpenAI is reportedly prepping to release the latest installment of its AI technology in the coming weeks. The model is expected to once again cement the startup’s ability to develop, train, and release Large Language Models (LLMs). It further showcases its ability to overcome the challenges of scaling the technology that requires immense computational power and training data to develop. Investors believe the model will help unlock AI applications that move beyond chat into fully autonomous execution.

Meanwhile, Elon Musk announced that his AI startup xAI will open-source its Grok 2 chatbot. Musk’s startup has released five versions of the Grok chatbot; however, only two of them have been made available as open source.

While these announcements may seem unrelated, they highlight a broader, ongoing debate in software: whether innovation should be driven by open collaboration or controlled by private enterprise. The conclusion of this debate, and the resultant choices made by individual and enterprise users, could potentially decide the future of artificial intelligence technology. The debate is whether AI models should be made open-source, or should companies with deep pockets continue to control their development, or if the answer lies somewhere in between the two.

The history of open source vs. proprietary software

In the early days of computing, the norm was to share software within the industry and with customers freely. Companies like IBM sold hardware and bundled software for free, often sharing source code with customers.

Meanwhile, programming communities, like those around mainframes, frequently exchanged code to solve problems. However, as software evolved and the cost of developing software increased, companies started charging for it separately.

By the time Microsoft came onto the scene in the 1970s, the proprietary software model had become the dominant ideology, with source code withheld and licenses restricting use and redistribution.

However, in the 1990s, there was another shift in this approach, and developers started demanding more room to make adjustments to the software to make it more viable and appealing for use in different businesses. This is where the term open source was coined and the idea adopted.

By the 2010s, a new model emerged, wherein big tech companies didn’t just make proprietary software; they also open-sourced it to ensure they could serve both end-consumers and businesses at the same time. A prime example of this hybrid model, where businesses both use and contribute to open source while maintaining proprietary services on top, is the Android project, which is an open source project with proprietary layers.

How AI models reflect the software divide

Not unlike software before it, AI models also come in many shapes and forms and can be both proprietary (closed) models or open-source. The key difference between these two is that while proprietary models are developed and controlled by private companies, open source models are freely available for use, modification, and distribution.

Proprietary models are typically developed by companies with deep pockets, allowing them to focus on state-of-the-art performance. However, to ensure that they can provide returns to their investors, these models generally come with restricted access, limited customization, and a high cost of deployment. Models like GPT-4o by OpenAI and Claude 3.5 by Anthropic are examples of proprietary AI models.

On the other hand, open-source models allow greater flexibility as their source code is publicly available. TensorFlow from Google and Scikit-learn frameworks are some of the prime examples of the open-source approach. While they may not be standalone models, they provide the building blocks on which businesses can construct their personalized AI models.

Currently, AI companies are taking the hybrid way; they are releasing both proprietary and, what can be called, open-source tools.

While AI companies worked on developing proprietary models and released open source versions, they also came up with a unique solution to ensure that even their open source models could not be replicated. Meta, for example, shares their model weights, which are the parameters of a trained AI model, but restricts commercial use and does not provide full transparency into their training datasets. So, while Meta claims its model is open-source, critics argue it fails to meet the OSI’s technical definition.

DeepSeek’s R1 model offers another example. The Chinese company released the model’s pre-trained weights publicly but withheld the full training data and original code, limiting true reproducibility.

Meta’s push for open-source AI

In May 2025, Meta commissioned a study that found that open-source models are more cost-effective for enterprises, with two-thirds of the surveyed organizations saying they believe open-source AI models are cheaper to deploy than proprietary models.

The study conducted by the Linux Foundation (LF) Research further found that companies would have to spend 3.5 times more if open source software didn’t exist, and with AI adoption increasing, open source models will drive even more cost savings than traditional open source software.

However, for businesses, the choice between open-source and proprietary AI isn’t a binary one.

On the one hand, open-source AI can reduce upfront costs by bypassing licensing fees, but it can be costly to integrate into existing systems. Additionally, skilled developers are needed to ensure smooth integration and maintenance. Open-source models also need a technically proficient team to manage configurations, optimize performance, and ensure security. This expertise may be costly to hire or train, especially for organizations.

When it comes to proprietary models, they have a higher upfront licensing cost but can compensate for them through bundled features, support, and compliance tools, which reduce additional expenses.

Businesses also have to ensure privacy and security compliance, which may not always be best served through the use of open source software, as they can be more prone to attacks by threat actors.

So, as AI integration increases, organizations are looking to use open-source AI models alongside proprietary tools. According to a study conducted by McKinsey, the Mozilla Foundation, and the Patrick J. McGovern Foundation, more than 50 percent of respondents’ organizations report using open source AI technologies in addition to proprietary tools. The study reflects their psyche, but businesses will have to assess their needs and decide which models suit their needs.

A hybrid future for AI models

The debate between the use of open-source and proprietary software has been a long-raging one that has found new dimensions in the age of AI. Between choosing whether or not to adopt AI models, businesses are also faced with the challenge of deciding which one suits them the most. In this debate, the lines between the binaries are further blurred, and nuances vary across organizations and sectors.

For instance, reliance on proprietary models may not be feasible for small businesses, but be the best way forward for larger ones.

As OpenAI continues to release increasingly powerful models, organizations must evaluate their workflows carefully. The goal is to adopt solutions that enable scalability, protect user data, and align with operational needs, whether through open-source or proprietary models, or both. In this scenario, while OpenAI continues to release models that can open up new possibilities, businesses will have to take a hard look at their workflows and decide which models suit their needs while ensuring overall safety and allowing scalability.

TL;DR

• OpenAI gears up for GPT-5 while xAI open-sources Grok 2, reigniting the “free code or walled garden?” fight.

• Most enterprises now run both open-source and proprietary models—cost, compliance, and talent drive the mix.

• LF Research says open AI can slash deployment spend 3.5×, but integration, security, and expertise still add up.

• Which delivers long-term trust—transparent weights or locked-down performance? Your roadmap (and risk) depends.

Friday Poll

Headlines You Actually Need

• GPT-5 Leak?: GitHub commit hints that the next OpenAI model is nearly ready for prime time. 

• NYT vs. ChatGPT Redux: The Times reports OpenAI’s newsroom pitch sparks fresh copyright worries. 

• Google, “Search Isn’t Killing Sites”: Mountain View defends AI overviews after publishers cry traffic drain. 

Weekend To-Dos

• Cleanvoice AI: One-click filler-word removal for your next podcast.

• Docugami: Turn long PDFs into structured data & Notion-ready summaries.

• Pika Labs “Lip-Sync”: Drop any image + audio to generate talking-head videos in minutes.

Rate This Edition