this post was submitted on 16 Apr 2025
88 points (95.8% liked)

Technology

68991 readers
3906 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
L4s@hackingne.ws
88
Open Source AI Definition Erodes the Meaning of “Open Source” (sfconservancy.org)
submitted 3 days ago by boramalper@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
6 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The TLDR here, IMO is simply stated: the OSAID fails to require reproducibility by the public of the scientific process of building these systems, because the OSAID fails to place sufficient requirements on the licensing and public disclosure of training sets for so-called “Open Source” systems. The OSI refused to add this requirement because of a fundamental flaw in their process; they decided that “there was no point in publishing a definition that no existing AI system could currently meet”. This fundamental compromise undermined the community process, and amplified the role of stakeholders who would financially benefit from OSI's retroactive declaration that their systems are “open source”. The OSI should have refrained from publishing a definition yet, and instead labeled this document as ”recommendations” for now.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] hendrik@palaver.p3x.de 4 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

I've also had that. And I'm not even sure whether I want to hold it against them. For some reason it's an industry-wide effort to muddy the waters and slap open source on their products. From the largest company who chose to have "Open" in their name but oppose transparency with every fibre of their body, to Meta, the curren pioneer(?) of "open sourcing" LLMs, to the smaller underdogs who pride themselves with publishing their models that way... They've all homed in on the term.

And lots of the journalists and bloggers also pick up on it. I personally think, terms should be well-defined. And open-source had a well-defined meaning. I get that it's complicated with the transformative nature of AI, copyright... But I don't think reproducibility is a question here at all. Of course we need that, that's core to something being open. And I don't even understand why the OSI claims it doesn't exist... Didn't we have datasets available until LLaMA1 along with an extensive scientific paper that made people able to reproduce the model? And LLMs aside, we sometimes have that with other kinds of machine learning...

(And by the way, this is an old article, from end of october last year.)