# Is the definition of "AI system" by the OECD too broad?

**URL:** <https://discuss.opensource.org/t/is-the-definition-of-ai-system-by-the-oecd-too-broad/156>\
**Category:** Open Source AI\
**Tags:** draft\
**Created:** [January 29, 2024, 11:19am UTC](https://discuss.opensource.org/t/is-the-definition-of-ai-system-by-the-oecd-too-broad/156 "2024-01-29T11:19:02Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 11

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![fontana](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex011/user_avatar/discuss.opensource.org/fontana/32/110_2.png) [@fontana](https://discuss.opensource.org/u/fontana)\
**Post date:** [February 15, 2024, 7:05pm UTC](https://discuss.opensource.org/t/is-the-definition-of-ai-system-by-the-oecd-too-broad/156/11 "2024-02-15T19:05:17Z")

</div>

@stefano I do not think we need a definition of “AI system” to solve the problem here. I think focusing on this concept and how to define it is unnecessarily complicating the task. Where else has the OSI focused on “systems” and the boundaries that are implied by them? Historically the OSI has focused on _things that are released_. There are two questions: (1) are the terms sufficiently permissive? (2) are you getting enough stuff to exercise the freedoms associated with FOSS. Those questions arise in the machine learning context too. There’s no need to complicate this with definitions of “systems” that appear to be removed from technical reality.

---

_[View the full topic](https://discuss.opensource.org/t/is-the-definition-of-ai-system-by-the-oecd-too-broad/156)._