Hello all, tl;dr—this is a proposal to focus on where we have consensus right now in RC1 so we can meet both a time-based and quality-based release on 27 Oct 2024. To help the discussion, I have drafted an RC2-STRAW to show what changes could look like: [image] The Open Source AI Definiti…

@quaid : Thanks for taking the time to draft this; it’s going to take me a little while to digest, but on first pass I think this is something I could get behind. It looks like you’ve eliminated the two problematic data classes (thanks also for simplifying the nomenclature — the English language wil…

Very nice and constructive attempt! At a rapid check, your proposal fixes 7 of 11 issues that still plague RC1 . The remaining issues here are: Implicit or Unspecified formal requirements: if ambiguities in the OSAID will be solved for each candidate AI system though a formal certificate issued b…

[image] Shamar: “OSI-approved licenses” This an industry accepted term that indicates the license has been subjected to the OSI approval process and placed in the list . At the very least, the definition should refer to already well established licenses processes, like the OSI list for softwa…

[image] gvlx: If set up the checklist in a very clear way, there is no burden on the OSI to certify each and every one of the Ai systems claims, a simple observation of its definitions will suffice. Not if the definition contains subjective (e.g., “sufficiently detailed”, “skilled person”, “s…

@anon18632855 and all, this is the new repo location (makes sense in this org anyway) and the diff of the RC1 and RC2-STRAW drafts: Merge pull request #2 from quaid/quaid/OSAID-RC2-STRAW--01 committed 08:25PM - 14 Oct 24 UTC (UTC) …

[image] quaid: We reduce the data classes covered in the definition to the first and second (Open Data, Open Access. These classes are defined in the FAQ . This would relegate Open Source AI to a niche, and it would be a tactical mistake, as explained on How we passed the AI conundrums – Open…

[image] stefano: This would relegate Open Source AI to a niche, and it would be a tactical mistake, as explained on How we passed the AI conundrums – Open Source Initiative . It may, but then, the ultimate test, as you have yourself made clear, is whether the definitions uphold the four freedo…

[image] kjetilk: That’s obviously not a luxury we have today, but it is very clear that it is easier to start narrow and allow more to fit, then to throw things out. In that regard, and whatever decision the OSI board takes, we should already be asking developers to check their projects again…

quaid’s proposal here makes sense to me and addresses my biggest concerns with RC1. The points in the How we passed the AI conundrums article seem to miss a key issue with RC1, which is that it doesn’t appear to make any meaningful extension to what is possible with existing open source licenses. I…

[image] grugnog: if we want to have a meaningful Open Source AI definition it needs to include open training data. Yes, this might mean that models that inherently rely on private data can’t be “Open Source AI”, but they can still have open source data information and code, which are the primary…

OSI Discuss

Proposal to achieve consensus for the 1.0 release

Open Source AI

show post in topic

Home
Categories
Guidelines
Terms of Service
Privacy Policy

Powered by Discourse, best viewed with JavaScript enabled