The board is confident that the process has resulted in a definition that meets the standards of Open Source as defined in the Open Source Definition and the Four Essential Freedoms, and we’re energized about how this definition positions OSI to facilitate meaningful and practical Open Source guidance for the entire industry.” opensource.org/blog/the-open-s… #OpenSource
The Open Source Initiative Announces the Release of the Industry’s First Open Source AI Definition
Open and public co-design process culminates in a stable version of Open Source AI Definition, ensures freedoms to use, study, share and modify AI systems.Open Source Initiative
Josh Triplett
in reply to Open Source Initiative :osi: • • •The board is incorrect. The OSI has corrupted the term Open Source by allowing those who want to propagate AIs that launder Open Source and proprietary code/data alike to do so under the banner of "Open Source". In particular, the so-called "Open Source AI" definition permits calling an AI "Open Source" even if it was trained on Open Source code or data and the license of its weights and outputs completely ignores the license of its training data.
This is an attempt to normalize the unacceptable practice of letting AI launder away the licenses of its training data, and to continue the practices of establishing "facts on the ground" that augur towards being able to continue ignoring the licenses of training data. The flagrant behavior of current AI training should not be allowed to continue, and should not be treated as a valid negotiating position from which to "compromise". Do not normalize the violation of Open Source licenses.
JimmyChezPants
in reply to Josh Triplett • • •@josh
The problem is "open source" itself. It was invented after the corporate world started using Free Software and realized they had to get control of it somehow, so they invented Open Source, which implies nothing about the license, only the method of development
Open Source is an amputation of Free Software's fundamental ethics, and therefore, it can be used flexibly anytime corporations want to seem like they share. There is no way to corrupt it because it has no values to corrupt.
Iron Bug
in reply to JimmyChezPants • • •but so called "AI" (a hoax that has nothing to do with intelligence) is really a voilation of all licenses and it steals data everywhere without user permission and generates DDOS scale network traffic and thus needs a global ban over the world for that reason.
JimmyChezPants
in reply to Iron Bug • • •@iron_bug @josh
"Open" is temporary state, if the software is controlled by Capital.
Centos, for example. A Community downstream of the supposedly "open" RHEL, whereby those with in-house expertise could standardize on the same OS as the rest of the biz world, minus the support costs.
Then somehow this Community project got under Red Hat's control, and soon enough, Centos is moved to chaotic upstream, in an attempt to force Centos users onto RHEL and get them paying up for "free" OS.
Iron Bug
in reply to JimmyChezPants • • •and particular cases are particular cases. for instance, Gnome is "free" and total BS at the same time, trying to impose it on everybody in open source world. worse than any corps and/or RHEL and its useless-d. it's very difficult to get rid of Gnome in Linux-based systems. and useless-d is removed easily and many distributives use different init systems, etc.
examples are numerous. the matter is not the crew of developers but the availability and quality of the code. code is the only thing that matters when it comes to software. if you dilike what some developers do - fork it and write your own version, simple. and sometimes open source is better than so called "free" code in that sense. it has more consistent development and better code quality.
JimmyChezPants
in reply to Iron Bug • • •@iron_bug @josh
I was hyperfocused on my personal vendetta against Open Source when composing previous reply, but basically, you're also wrong about Machine Learning as a tech, which has many benign uses.
The problem is not the algo tech itself, the problem is the scale at which they are attempting to deploy it ("we need nuclear plants asap!"), and to what end (give money access to skill, while cutting off skill from access to money).
Iron Bug
in reply to JimmyChezPants • • •stochastic processes are never controllable, and never deliver any reliable results. this is trivial.