Skip to main content

​
The Risks of Closed-Source AI Assistants

Closed-source AI assistants dominate the market, offered by major technology companies with massive resources and sophisticated marketing. These proprietary systems promise convenience, polish, and cutting-edge capabilities. However, beneath the slick interfaces and impressive demonstrations lie significant risks that users often don’t recognize until they’re deeply invested in these platforms. Understanding these risks is essential for making informed decisions about which AI tools to trust with your personal and professional information. The fundamental risk of closed-source AI assistants is opacity. You cannot see how they work, what they do with your data, or what processes run behind the scenes. The code is secret, the algorithms are hidden, and you can only observe inputs and outputs without any visibility into what happens in between. This black box nature requires blind trust in the company’s claims about privacy, security, and data handling. You’re trusting that they’re doing what they say and not doing things they haven’t disclosed. This opacity creates information asymmetry where the company knows everything about how the system works and what it does with your data, while you know only what they choose to tell you. This power imbalance is inherent to closed-source software, and it becomes particularly problematic for AI assistants that have intimate access to your emails, calendar, conversations, and personal information. You’re sharing enormous amounts of sensitive data with a system you cannot inspect or verify. Data harvesting is a significant risk with closed-source AI assistants. Many proprietary AI services use customer interactions to train their models, analyze user behavior for business intelligence, or monetize data in various ways. The terms of service might grant the company broad rights to use your data, but the language is often vague enough that you can’t know exactly what’s being done with your information. You might think you’re just using an AI assistant, but you’re also providing valuable training data that benefits the company. The business models of closed-source AI assistants often create conflicts of interest. If the company’s revenue depends on advertising, they have incentives to collect more data about you to enable better ad targeting. If they sell analytics or insights to other businesses, they have incentives to analyze your behavior and preferences. If they use customer data to train models they sell or license, they have incentives to maximize data collection. These business incentives can conflict with your privacy interests, and you have no way to verify how the company balances these competing interests. Vendor lock-in is a serious risk with proprietary AI assistants. As you use these services, you build workflows, accumulate data, and develop habits around how the system works. This investment makes it increasingly difficult to switch to alternatives. The company knows this and can exploit it by raising prices, changing features, or modifying terms of service in ways that wouldn’t be acceptable if you weren’t already locked in. You’re vulnerable to the company’s business decisions because switching costs are high. The data portability limitations of closed-source services exacerbate vendor lock-in. Many proprietary AI assistants make it difficult or impossible to export your data in useful formats. Even when export is offered, it might be in proprietary formats that don’t work with other tools, or it might be incomplete, missing important context or relationships. This data imprisonment means that even if you want to leave the service, you might lose access to your accumulated information and have to start over with a new system. Security through obscurity is a flawed approach that many closed-source systems rely on. The idea is that keeping the code secret makes it harder for attackers to find vulnerabilities. In reality, attackers find vulnerabilities anyway through reverse engineering, testing, and exploitation. Meanwhile, legitimate security researchers cannot audit the code to identify and report issues. The result is that closed-source systems often have undiscovered vulnerabilities that persist for years because only the company’s internal team can review the code. The concentration of data in closed-source AI services creates attractive targets for attackers. When millions of users’ emails, conversations, and personal information are stored in a single company’s systems, that company becomes a high-value target for sophisticated attackers. Breaches of major AI services could expose enormous amounts of sensitive information for millions of users simultaneously. You’re vulnerable to the company’s security failures regardless of how careful you are with your own security practices. Government surveillance and legal access to data is a risk that many users don’t consider. In many jurisdictions, governments can compel companies to hand over user data through legal processes like subpoenas or national security letters. Some of these requests come with gag orders that prevent companies from even telling users their data was accessed. If your AI assistant’s data is stored by a company in a particular country, it’s subject to that country’s laws regarding government access. You have no control over this and might not even know when it happens. Terms of service changes are a constant risk with closed-source services. Companies can modify their terms, changing how they handle data, what rights they claim over your information, or what they’re allowed to do with your interactions. While they typically notify users of changes, the notifications are often buried in email or presented as take-it-or-leave-it propositions. You might not realize that the privacy protections you thought you had have been weakened until it’s too late. Service discontinuation is a real risk that affects users regularly. Companies shut down products that aren’t profitable enough, get acquired and have their products discontinued, or pivot to different markets. When a closed-source AI service shuts down, you lose access to your data and your workflows. You’re forced to migrate to a different platform, often with little notice and limited ability to export your information. This risk is inherent to depending on proprietary services controlled by companies whose business priorities might not align with your long-term needs. Feature changes and degradation can happen without user input or consent. A closed-source AI assistant might remove features you depend on, change how functionality works, or degrade service quality to reduce costs. You have no recourse because you don’t control the software. The company makes decisions based on their business interests, and users must accept whatever changes are made or leave the service entirely. Hidden functionality is a risk that’s difficult to detect with closed-source systems. The software might be doing things you’re not aware of—collecting additional data, communicating with unexpected servers, or implementing features that weren’t disclosed. Without access to the code, you cannot verify what the software actually does versus what the company claims it does. This hidden functionality could include tracking, data collection, or behaviors that violate your privacy expectations. The lack of customization with closed-source AI assistants means you’re limited to whatever features and configurations the company provides. If you have unique requirements, work in a specialized field, or need to integrate with internal tools, you’re out of luck unless the company decides to support your use case. This inflexibility can be frustrating and limiting, especially for professionals with specific needs that don’t match the mass-market features the company prioritizes. Algorithmic bias and unexplainable decisions are risks with AI systems generally, but they’re harder to address with closed-source assistants. If the AI makes decisions you don’t understand or that seem biased, you have no way to investigate why or how to fix it. The algorithms are hidden, and you’re dependent on the company to identify and address bias. With open source systems, researchers can study algorithmic behavior and the community can work to improve fairness and transparency. The dependency on company infrastructure means you’re vulnerable to their operational issues. If the company’s servers go down, you lose access to your AI assistant. If they experience performance problems, your experience degrades. If they make infrastructure changes that introduce bugs, you’re affected. You have no control over these operational aspects and no ability to fix problems yourself. You’re entirely dependent on the company’s operational competence and priorities. Privacy policy violations and scandals are unfortunately common with technology companies. Even companies with good intentions sometimes violate their own privacy policies, whether through mistakes, rogue employees, or business pressures. When these violations occur with closed-source services, users often don’t discover them until they’re exposed through whistleblowers or investigations. The lack of transparency means you can’t verify compliance with privacy promises. The accumulation of these risks creates a concerning picture for closed-source AI assistants. Any single risk might be acceptable, but the combination of opacity, data harvesting, vendor lock-in, security vulnerabilities, government access, service discontinuation, and hidden functionality creates substantial exposure. You’re trusting a company with intimate access to your digital life while having no ability to verify their practices or protect yourself from their failures or business decisions. The contrast with open source AI assistants like GAIA is stark. Open source eliminates opacity through code transparency. It prevents hidden data harvesting through public scrutiny. It reduces vendor lock-in through data portability and the ability to self-host. It improves security through community auditing. It provides protection against service discontinuation because the code exists publicly. It enables customization and addresses algorithmic bias through community involvement. These advantages don’t eliminate all risks, but they fundamentally change the risk profile in favor of users. Understanding the risks of closed-source AI assistants doesn’t mean you should never use them. For some users, the convenience and polish of proprietary services outweigh the risks. However, this decision should be made consciously, with full awareness of what you’re risking and what you’re trusting the company to do. For users handling sensitive information, for privacy-conscious individuals, or for anyone who values transparency and control, the risks of closed-source AI assistants are substantial enough to warrant serious consideration of open source alternatives. The question isn’t whether closed-source AI assistants are inherently evil or whether the companies behind them have malicious intent. Most companies genuinely try to provide good services and protect user privacy within their business constraints. The question is whether you’re comfortable with the structural risks that closed-source software creates—the opacity, the power imbalance, the dependency, and the lack of verification. For AI assistants that have such intimate access to your life, these structural risks deserve careful consideration before you commit to a closed-source platform.

​
Get Started with GAIA

Ready to experience AI-powered productivity? GAIA is available as a hosted service or self-hosted solution. Try GAIA Today: GAIA is open source and privacy-first. Your data stays yours, whether you use our hosted service or run it on your own infrastructure.