3 ms·

OSI sponsors include Meta, Microsoft, Salesforce and many others. It would seem unlikely that they'd demand the training data to be free and available. Well, a

OSI sponsors include Meta, Microsoft, Salesforce and many others. It would seem unlikely that they'd demand the training data to be free and available. Well, another org is getting directors' salaries while open source writers get nothing.

dokyun 2y ago
This is why I'd wait for the FSF to deliver their statement before taking anything OSI comes out with seriously.
- JoshTriplett 2y ago
  The FSF delivering a statement on AI will have zero effect, no matter what position they take.
  - dokyun 2y ago
    As programs that utilize AI continue to become more prevalent, the concern for their freedom is going to become very important. It might require a new license, like a new version or variant of the GPL. In any case I believe the FSF is going to continue to campaign for the ethical freedom of these new classes of software, even if it requires new insight into what it means for them to be free, as they have done before. The FSF is also a much larger and more vocal organization than OSI is, even without the latter's corporate monarc--I mean, monetizers.
    - pxc 2y ago
      > In any case I believe the FSF is going to continue to campaign for the ethical freedom of these new classes of software, even if it requires new insight into what it means for them to be free, as they have done before. And going the quotations in TFA, it seems the FSF's thinking about this is clear and nuanced, as usual: > [T]he FSF makes a distinction between non-free and unethical in this case: > > It may be that some nonfree ML have valid moral reasons for not releasing training data, such as personal medical data. In that case, we would describe the application as a whole as nonfree. But using it could be ethically excusable if it helps you do a specialized job that is vital for society, such as diagnosing disease or injury. If they end up needing new terminology to describe this case, I'm sure they will devise some-- and it will be more explicit than a moniker like 'shared source'.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
whitehexagon 2y ago
>It would seem unlikely that they'd demand the training data to be free and available. I wonder who has legal liability for the closed-data generated weights and some of the rubbish they spew out. Since users will be unable to change the source-data inputs, and will only be able to tweak these compiled-model outputs. Is such tweaking analogous to having a car resprayed, and the manufacturer washes their hands of any liability over design safety.

dokyun 2y ago

This is why I'd wait for the FSF to deliver their statement before taking anything OSI comes out with seriously.

JoshTriplett 2y ago
The FSF delivering a statement on AI will have zero effect, no matter what position they take.
- dokyun 2y ago
  As programs that utilize AI continue to become more prevalent, the concern for their freedom is going to become very important. It might require a new license, like a new version or variant of the GPL. In any case I believe the FSF is going to continue to campaign for the ethical freedom of these new classes of software, even if it requires new insight into what it means for them to be free, as they have done before. The FSF is also a much larger and more vocal organization than OSI is, even without the latter's corporate monarc--I mean, monetizers.
  - pxc 2y ago
    > In any case I believe the FSF is going to continue to campaign for the ethical freedom of these new classes of software, even if it requires new insight into what it means for them to be free, as they have done before. And going the quotations in TFA, it seems the FSF's thinking about this is clear and nuanced, as usual: > [T]he FSF makes a distinction between non-free and unethical in this case: > > It may be that some nonfree ML have valid moral reasons for not releasing training data, such as personal medical data. In that case, we would describe the application as a whole as nonfree. But using it could be ethically excusable if it helps you do a specialized job that is vital for society, such as diagnosing disease or injury. If they end up needing new terminology to describe this case, I'm sure they will devise some-- and it will be more explicit than a moniker like 'shared source'.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

whitehexagon 2y ago

>It would seem unlikely that they'd demand the training data to be free and available. I wonder who has legal liability for the closed-data generated weights and some of the rubbish they spew out. Since users will be unable to change the source-data inputs, and will only be able to tweak these compiled-model outputs. Is such tweaking analogous to having a car resprayed, and the manufacturer washes their hands of any liability over design safety.