I think overall it’s clean and easily understood. While I know it’s not the intent of the OSI to cover all aspects of the use of AI in this definition, there are two things I’d like to offer for consideration.
-
Technically speaking, since the USPTO and many international organizations have ruled that purely AI-generated content can be used without license or royalty, and cannot be trademarked have a copyright enforced, how would the OSI address topics of AI generated content created by closed source models and open source models alike?
-
This line at the end: “The Open Source AI Definition does not take any stance as to whether model parameters require a license, or any other legal instruments, and whether they can be legally controlled by any such instruments once disclosed and shared.”
My concern is that the parameters themselves fall under the “Study” and “Modify” components of the Open Source AI definition. There should be some clarifying language to discuss the difference between a license that might apply to a parameter that is disclosed as part of an open source model vs the open source model itself. i.e. is there a transitive application of open source AI definition which applies to all aspects of the model defined in the document? Where is the cut point?