Context We’re aiming to use the Open Source AI Definition (OSAID) to review approximately ten AI systems before releasing RC1 at the end of June. To this end, we convened four workgroups at the beginning of this year to review an initial group of AI systems self-described as open: BLOOM, Pythia, L…

I’m curious about “sufficiently detailed information about the data used to train the system, so that a skilled person can recreate a substantially equivalent system using the same or similar data.” Does the validation check for this? Maybe it’s already been established that given the required elem…

[image] jasonbrooks: Does the validation check for this? That’s the idea: the Preferred form to make modifications lists the basic principles that are unlikely to change in the future, while the Checklist below provides a list of components required to comply with the definition of preferred …

I think it would strengthen the definition if we had more information on instances of people taking all these open model-building components, modifying and rebuilding them – what was involved, here’s the end product, etc. My thought all throughout has been if OSI implies that that promises of open …

Thank you, Mer, and everyone for posting this thorough summary of our efforts. For community transparency, I will share here our review of the review notes and feedback, including points highlighted above: Hello Stef and Mer, Thank you again for allowing our review team a little extra time to un…

Here’s where we are with system analysis, given our incomplete legal documentation . If you can help us fill in the blanks with more complete system information, please let us know (comments or DM). Thanks! [OSAID Validation - June 4 2024]

[image] amcasari: The current component framework, even with the reference paper , was not clear for us which type of artifact should fall under each component. For example, in our notes, Thanks for calling this out, I hadn’t read it yet. I like the class-based approach. Do you know if this mo…

@jasonbrooks the Model Openness Framework is indeed referenced in the draft Open Source AI Definition, the Checklist is based on it and the paper is linked from the “note” in the draft. And no, the Open Source AI Definition will be binary, not a range of open.

Thanks to @nick for pointing us to the opening-up-chatgpt.github.io LLM openness list. Based on this information, we are now categorizing Mistral (Mixtral 8x7B) as not in alignment with the OSAID because its data pre-processing code is not released under an OSI-approved license. [OSAID Validation …

I’d like to audit Silo AI’s Viking model: Silo AI releases the first checkpoints of Viking, an open LLM for all Nordic languages, English and programming languages. They claim it’s Open Source under the Apache 2.0 license, so I’d like to do a thorough analysis about the actual openness of the model…

Hi @merlijn-sebrechts . Thanks for your interest. Right now our process is to have each system reviewed by at least 1 person who is unaffiliated with the system (neither a creator nor an advisor). If you are unaffiliated with the Viking model, I can set you up with a review sheet in our public review…

OSI Discuss

Initial Report on Definition Validation

Open Source AI

process

show post in topic

Home
Categories
Guidelines
Terms of Service
Privacy Policy

Powered by Discourse, best viewed with JavaScript enabled