"I support it only if it's open source" should be a more common viewpoint

The author argues that the view "I support it only if it's open source" is undervalued as a middle path between rapid, unrestricted deployment of powerful technologies and control by trusted gatekeepers. The argument holds that open source improves equality of access, makes producers out of consumers, improves verifiability, and prevents vendor lock-in. Applied to proprietary life extension, for example, the author expects open source would let anyone use and offer the technology cheaply, whereas proprietary versions might be limited to billionaires and political leaders. The author also says open source carries misuse risks for things like nuclear weapons, and is skeptical of gatekeeper control because militaries have a poor history of constraining themselves, citing the Soviet bioweapons program.