> Your logic is exactly what the Linux people were saying.

There's nothing wrong with that logic.

> But as we saw due to AI more and more bugs and exploits are being found, some dating back years of releases.

Well, AI helps fixing bugs too and it can also write bug free code with minimal additional effort, so open source not only retains its advantages in the presence of AI, it multiplies them. After the initial (and artificial) hype and bug-fixing efforts things are going to settle down quite nicely.

Closed source, on the other hand, doesn't have the advantage of multiple eyes and minds finding and fixing bugs and the unavailability of the source isn't an advantage either - AI can decompile and understand binary too, so it can find bugs without access to the sources as well.

> Open weights won't prevent a model from being poisoned because no human understands how the weights actually impact the model.

You're using one-sided logic again. If "no human understands how the weights actually impact the model" then viruses would be impossible. Apparently humans understand enough to introduce viruses and that's enough to detect and remove them. It's similar to alignment and abliteration, as I explained above.

> But as we saw due to AI more and more bugs and exploits are being found, some dating back years of releases.

That's by design though. It's just that there's now an exponential increase in the amount of "eyes", in the form of AI agents, looking at the FOSS code to find and fix the bugs.