In a comment to draft 0.0.4 , Shuji Sado (佐渡秀治) wrote: The OECD’s definition of AI defines a wide range of reasoning systems as AI. It seems to me that this applies to a wider range of systems than those generally referred to as LLMs or Diffusion Models, and that many of the simpler systems are sim…

I believe the OECD definition is both too broad and too vague and is the biggest flaw of the current draft. One reason why it is problematic is well captured in the comment from Shuji Sado. The only reason for a special definition of “open source AI” is if the things being called open source AI have…

Interesting to note that the EU IA Act modify a bit its definition of AI system: “‘AI system‘ is a machine-based system designed to operate with varying levels of autonomy and that may exhibit adaptiveness after deployment and that, for explicit or implicit objectives, infers, from the input it rec…

I am not married to the OECD definition but we need to refer to a well understood and agreed upon definition of AI system in order to define “open source” for it. We tried discussing “open” without that reference framework and the discussion was going all over the place. Also, I fail to see how we …

Going back to the main topic of the thread. “Artificial intelligence” is a very broad an vague phrase, even in the field of AI itself. It has been for decades and I don’t see that changing. There are many programs which some would describe as “artificial intelligence” and some would not. The debat…

I moved some of the posts in this thread to the Training data access thread where they’re more appropriate. Thanks @jplorre , that’s an interesting approach, I’d be open to use the same wording. I’d love to hear more suggestions. @fontana have you seen more precise definitions of AI systems that we …

@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 focus…

[image] fontana: Where else has the OSI focused on “systems” and the boundaries that are implied by them? Good question. For the FSD and OSD the target is the program or software, mentioned multiple times in the GNU Manifesto, whose meaning is (un)consciously recognized by practitioners. One …

[AI_hierarchy.svg] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:AI_hierarchy.svg It appears to me that OSAID is targeting AI systems like LLM that are within the scope of deep learning in this figure. However, the OECD definition of AI covers the scope of machine learning (or beyond) and is not restri…

I think it’s quite important to have a definition which would apply to all AI systems, including hardcoded symbolic rule systems. For these, however, the definition ought to be equivalent in practice to the OSD, so that consistency is preserved and the massive gray area between AI and not AI doesn’t…

[image] stefano: Is your argument that we don’t need to define AI at all? How would you rephrase the manifesto? I don’t think we need to define AI. Maybe I will post about this separately (although I think it would repeat some things I’ve already said). I don’t think we need a manifesto.

OSI Discuss

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

Open Source AI

draft

show post in topic

Home
Categories
Guidelines
Terms of Service
Privacy Policy

Powered by Discourse, best viewed with JavaScript enabled