# Malicious compliance with the release candidate Open Source AI definition

**URL:** <https://discuss.opensource.org/t/malicious-compliance-with-the-release-candidate-open-source-ai-definition/642>\
**Category:** Open Source AI\
**Created:** [October 6, 2024, 7:46pm UTC](https://discuss.opensource.org/t/malicious-compliance-with-the-release-candidate-open-source-ai-definition/642 "2024-10-06T19:46:59Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 4

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Shamar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/94ad74/32.png) [@Shamar](https://discuss.opensource.org/u/Shamar)\
**Post date:** [October 7, 2024, 9:59am UTC](https://discuss.opensource.org/t/malicious-compliance-with-the-release-candidate-open-source-ai-definition/642/4 "2024-10-07T09:59:12Z")

</div>

> [@stefano](#):
>
> > [@Mark](#):
> >
> > Meta could claim that the [RedPajama project](https://huggingface.co/datasets/togethercomputer/RedPajama-Data-V2) 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**](https://discuss.opensource.org/t/we-heard-you-lets-focus-on-substantive-discussion/589/25)) 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](https://discuss.opensource.org/t/we-heard-you-lets-focus-on-substantive-discussion/589/13#p-1314-implicit-or-unspecified-formal-requirements-2):

> [@We heard you: let's focus on substantive discussion](https://discuss.opensource.org/t/we-heard-you-lets-focus-on-substantive-discussion/589/13):
>
> 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)?

---

_[View the full topic](https://discuss.opensource.org/t/malicious-compliance-with-the-release-candidate-open-source-ai-definition/642)._