Hi everyone, After lengthy discussions, we have serious concerns about the feasibility of the draft in its current form based on our experiences as open source practitioners, machine learning researchers, and recovering compliance people. We outline them below, and hope to provide a cohesive place…

@juliaferraioli and Spot, thank for your serious and detailed review of v. 0.0.8 and for your proposals of alternative options. I look forward to reading others’ feedback on these ideas.

[image] juliaferraioli: Establish a certification process The establishment of a Certification Process would be a separate discussion. In OSAID, OSI-approved licenses also play a crucial role in practice. Historically, each OSI-approved license has been approved through a very simple process…

[image] juliaferraioli: released under an open data license By the way, when you say “an open data license,” are you referring to a license approved by the Open Knowledge Foundation? I don’t think that’s the case, but I just wanted to confirm.

Julia, I definitely agree that the data must be covered in some way. That’s why we’re doing this whole Open Source AI definition exercise in the first place; if just the code were enough, we could use the OSD.

[image] juliaferraioli: For AI systems, data is the equivalent of source code, I think that is a very liberal use of the word “equivalent”. Without source code, you don’t know what operations a computer program is performing and you do not have it under a human-readable form in which the aut…

Hello Julia, Spot, I am in full agreement with the position that datasets (training included) are part of the “preferred form of modification” of AI systems and, as such, needed to exercise the freedoms to study and modify them. I supported and still support making their release required in OSAID, u…

I think relaxing the dataset assumption to just having it being available for zero-charge regardless of whether its OSAID compliant would make it much easier to comply and remove all the vagueness from the draft.

The establishment of a Certification Process would be a separate discussion. Absolutely, and please see the other thread started here I echo your concerns and that’s why we flagged them here. I do not see a way around the necessity of a certification process with the definition in its current fo…

[image] Aspie96: [image] juliaferraioli: For AI systems, data is the equivalent of source code, I think that is a very liberal use of the word “equivalent”. Without source code, you don’t know what operations a computer program is performing and you do not have it under a human-readable …

Note however that it is plagued by the same problem that you (correctly) criticize elsewhere, of leaving undefined what “equivalent” means, opening the door to potential loopholes. I agree that it is kicking the can down the road a bit. I would want to see a justification for why an AI system is …

OSI Discuss

Overarching concerns with Draft v.0.0.8 and suggested modifications

Open Source AI

draft

show post in topic

Home
Categories
Guidelines
Terms of Service
Privacy Policy

Powered by Discourse, best viewed with JavaScript enabled