Malicious compliance with the release candidate Open Source AI definition

[Shamar]

@stefano

@Mark

Meta could claim that the RedPajama project shows that a ‘sufficiently skilled individual’ (or team I suppose) can indeed create something similar

You need to ask then: will you let Meta claim that?

As of today, OSI let Meta to decide what went in OSAID and what not, granting the LLama team (and only the Llama team, who counted 2 Meta employees) the power to counter the votes of the other teams.

@stefano

Because I know OSI won’t.

Actually, this is one of the unaddressed issues of OSAID RC1: if an AI system is “Open Source” if and only if OSI certify it as being Open Source, such formal requirement should be explicit:

@Shamar

So if Open Source AI is what OSI certify as Open Source AI, such formal requirement should be explicit in the Open Source AI definition, eg in a new final section like this:

OSI Certification

OSI will be responsible to certify the compliance of each candidate AI system to the definition above.

• For example, when a new version of an AI system is released with different weights, a skilled person at OSI will recreate a substantially equivalent system using the same or similar data, to verify that the Data information requirement still hold.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Why should OSI release an ambiguous definition that leaves so much arbitrariness to OSI itself (or to a Judge trying to enforce the AI Act)?