this post was submitted on 06 Apr 2024
81 points (98.8% liked)

Free Open-Source Artificial Intelligence

2764 readers
2 users here now

Welcome to Free Open-Source Artificial Intelligence!

We are a community dedicated to forwarding the availability and access to:

Free Open Source Artificial Intelligence (F.O.S.A.I.)

More AI Communities

LLM Leaderboards

Developer Resources

GitHub Projects

FOSAI Time Capsule

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 5 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 21 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Nice article. That's exactly what I've been complaining about for the last year.

In the end it's not super obvious how to apply the term "open source" to AI models. And not everyone uses the OSI definition anyways.

And after all the lawsuits started last year, it's clear why they do it. To protect themselves. Maybe it's going to get better once we update our legislation.

Ultimately, the community needs to decide what it’s trying to achieve

And I'd underline that this "community" consists of multi billion dollar big tech companies that have the millions to spare to train these models. It's not "we" the people.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Is it even a settled question whether model weights meet the threshold of originality?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

Check out this article by Kit Walsh, a senior staff attorney at the EFF. It's not settled, but it would raise a lot of questions if they weren't.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

This sounds like some weirdly petty political wrangling that would delight any full-blooded bureaucrat.

The desire to make demands about training data is weird. Open source has never included a requirement to provide documentation of any kind. If there was some requirement for documentation, few would care and most just do their thing anyway. FOSS licenses facilitate sharing by giving people an easy way to make their code legally usable by others.

There's nothing that quite matches source code + compiled binary. There are permissively licensed datasets and models. I'll call either open source. Neither is equivalent to source code but either can be a source.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

I don't think the term open-source can be applied to model weights. Even if you have the exact data, config, trainer and cluster it's basically impossible to reproduce an exact model. Calling a model "open" sort of works but then there's the distinction between open for research and open for commercial use. I think it's kind of similar to the "free" software distinction. Maybe there's some Latin word we could use.