4 ms·
This kind of research really highlights just how wrong the OSI is for pushing their belief that "open source" in a machine learning context does not require the
by RVuRnvbM2e 3y ago
This kind of research really highlights just how wrong the OSI is for pushing their belief that "open source" in a machine learning context does not require the original data.
https://social.opensource.org/@ed/110749300164829505 https://social.opensource.org/@ed/110749300164829505
- davidguetta 3y agoThey really just seem bad faith in this thread. Just publish the training data FFS (medical data excluded)
- catchnear4321 3y agothen it wouldn’t be the training data, it would only be a subset. if the issue is sensitive data in a training dataset, perhaps that should be addressed rather than accommodated.
- davidguetta 3y agoThe point is that they seem to pretend they want to redefine the meaning of open source BECAUSE of medical data. Just say medical data is not open source and make the rest really open source
- catchnear4321 3y agoeven reference would be sufficient if access were not controlled and denied under the guise of protecting people. the problem is the source medical data itself is insufficiently cleansed. (if it can be at all.) ideally the medical data is open source, but only contains what’s necessary, and not what’s sensitive. that is, obviously, messy…