# Training data access **URL:** \ **Category:** Open Source AI\ **Tags:** draft\ **Created:** [January 26, 2024, 10:38pm UTC](https://discuss.opensource.org/t/training-data-access/152 "2024-01-26T22:38:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 1
**Author:** ![lumin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ce73a5/32.png) [@lumin](https://discuss.opensource.org/u/lumin)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2024, 10:38pm UTC](https://discuss.opensource.org/t/training-data-access/152/1 "2024-01-26T22:38:41Z")
I’ve mentioned this multiple times in the private mailing list. Now bringing it here again becaue this is one of the biggest elephant in the room issue. I suggest that at least “open access” training data is required to fulfill the “freedom to study and modify”. Requiring datasets to be open-source under OSI-approved licenses is not quite practical given the current practice. I understand that people may want to make the requirments more permissive, not requiring an open source AI to allow people to study its training data, in order to make the definition more compatible with the current practice. I’m strongly against being too permissive on training data access. While open source AI definition is orthogonal to ethics, bias, etc, the access to an AI’s original training dataset is a vital ground for solving those kinds of issues. Consider an open-source large language model trained by company A, where its training datasets contains deliberate badmouth against company B. How do you investigate and trust such a badmouth language model without being able to peek into its original training dataset? This is a kindly warning to the discussion group about the risk of being too permissive on training data. I missed recent online meetings due to busy personal schedule. If this issue is discussed, I’m sorry for the noise. If not resolved, this is my vote. --- _[View the full topic](https://discuss.opensource.org/t/training-data-access/152)._