{"id":13979,"date":"2024-04-22T16:42:26","date_gmt":"2024-04-22T14:42:26","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/plus.maciejpiasecki.info\/index.php\/2024\/04\/22\/open-source-ai-definition-weekly-update-april-22\/"},"modified":"2024-05-13T22:39:40","modified_gmt":"2024-05-13T20:39:40","slug":"open-source-ai-definition-weekly-update-april-22","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/plus.maciejpiasecki.info\/index.php\/2024\/04\/22\/open-source-ai-definition-weekly-update-april-22\/","title":{"rendered":"Open Source AI Definition \u2013 Weekly update April 22"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Comments on the forum<\/p>\n<p>A user added in the forum that there is an issue as traditional copyright protection might not apply to weight models because they are essentially mathematical calculations. \u201c licensing them through any kind of copyright license will not be enforceable !! and this means that anybody can use them without any copyright restriction (assuming that they have been made public) and this means that you cannot enforce any kind of provisions such as attribution, no warranty or copyleft\u201d They suggest using contractual terms instead of relying on copyright as a workaround, acknowledgement that this will trigger a larger conversation<\/p>\n<p>Comments left on the definition text<\/p>\n<p>Clarification needed under \u201cWhat is Open Source AI\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Discussion on whether \u201cmade available\u201d should be changed to \u201creleased\u201d or \u201cdistributed\u201d<\/p>\n<p>One user pointed out that \u201cmade available\u201d is the most appropriate, as the suggested wordings would be antagonistic and limiting<\/p>\n<p>Continuation of last week\u2019s issue regarding defining who these four freedoms are for, deployers, users or someone else.<\/p>\n<p>Added that a user understands it as \u201cWe need essential freedoms to enable users\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n<p>But, then who are we defining as \u201cUsers\u201d? Is it the person deploying the AI or the calling prompt?<\/p>\n<p>Another wording is suggested: \u201cOpen Source AI is an AI system that is made available under terms that grant, without conditions or restrictions, the rights to\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Clarification is needed under \u201cPreferred form to make modification to a machine learning system\u201d,\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>Specifically to the claim: (The following components are not required,) but their inclusion in releases is appreciated.<\/p>\n<p>Clarification regarding whether this means best practice or it\u2019s a mere a suggestion.<\/p>\n<p>Suggestion to change the sentence to \u201cThe following components are not required to meet the Open Source AI definition and may be provided for convenience.\u201d This will also \u201cconsider if those components are provided, can they be provided under different terms that don\u2019t meet the Open Source AI definition, or do they fall under the same OSI compliant license automatically. \u201c<\/p>\n<p>Question regarding the addition of \u201cmay\u201d under data transparency in the 0.0.7 draft definition, which was not included in the 0.0.6 one, considering that the components are described as \u201crequired\u201d in the checklist below<\/p>\n<p>(Context: \u201cSufficiently detailed information on how the system was trained. This may include the training methodologies and techniques, the training data sets used, information about the provenance of those data sets, their scope and characteristics; how the data was obtained and selected, the labelling procedures and data cleaning methodologies.\u201d)<\/p>\n<p>Another user seconds this and further adds that it should be changed to \u201cmust\u201d, or something else which is definitive.<\/p>\n<p>Town Hall meeting was held on April 19th<\/p>\n<p>In case you missed it, the with town hall was held last Friday. Access the recordings and slides used here&#013;<br \/>\n&#013;<br \/>\nSource: opensource.org&#013;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Comments on the forum A user added in the forum that there is an issue as traditional copyright protection might [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":63,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"false","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-13979","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-mp"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/plus.maciejpiasecki.info\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13979","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/plus.maciejpiasecki.info\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/plus.maciejpiasecki.info\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/plus.maciejpiasecki.info\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/63"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/plus.maciejpiasecki.info\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=13979"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/plus.maciejpiasecki.info\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13979\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":13980,"href":"https:\/\/plus.maciejpiasecki.info\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13979\/revisions\/13980"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/plus.maciejpiasecki.info\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=13979"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/plus.maciejpiasecki.info\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=13979"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/plus.maciejpiasecki.info\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=13979"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}