Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.project > #13630

Concerns regarding the "Open Source AI Definition" 1.0-RC2

Show all headers | View raw

Hi folks,

While diverse issues persist, the world and the software ecosystem is 
still proceeding
with the advancement of AI. As a particular type of software, AI is 
quite different
from the paradigm of traditional software, since there are more 
components involved
as an integral parts of the AI system. People gradually realize the Open 
Source
Definition[3], derived from DFSG[4], could no longer cover AI software 
very well.

To answer the question "what kind of AI is free software / open source", 
there are
multiple relevant efforts in recent years. Six years ago we discussed 
the same question[6],
and as a result, I drafted an unofficial document named ML-Policy[5]; In 
the recent
one or two years, OSI started the drafting process of "Open Source AI 
Definition" (OSAID),
and its 1.0-RC2 version[1] is available for public review, and about to 
be formally
released; FSF is working on a similar effort concurrently[2].

I think the upcoming of release of OSAID will make a big impact on the 
open source
ecosystem. However, while OSAID starts from DFSG and the software 
freedom definition,
it is very concerning to me. Here I'll only discuss the most pressing 
issue -- data.

The current OSAID-1.0-RC2 only requires "data information", but not the 
"original
training data" to be available. That effectively allows "Open Source AI" 
to hide
their original training datasets. A group of people expressed their 
concerns and
disagreement about the draft on OSI's forum[7][8][9][10], emphasizing 
the negative
impacts of allowing "Open Source AI" to hide their original training 
datasets.

Allowing "Open Source AI" to hide their original training dataset is 
nothing different
than setting up a dataset barrier protecting the monopoly. The "open 
source community"
around such "Open Source AI" is only able to conduct further development 
based on
such AI, but not able to inspect the process of how the original piece 
of "Open
Source AI" is produced, and not able to improve the "Open Souce AI" itself.
This leads to many implications including but not limited to security 
and bias issues.
For instance, without being able to access the original training data of 
an "Open
Source AI", once those "Open Source AI" starts to say harmful or toxic 
things,
or starts to deliver advertisements, nobody other than the first party 
is able
to diagnose and fix the bias issue or rip the advertisement off and 
produce an
improved AI. In the sense of traditional open source software this looks 
ridiculous
because you can easily modify its source code, ripping off the 
advertisement pop up
window, and re-compile it.

My mind remains mostly the same from 6 years ago. And after 5~6 years, 
the most
important concept in ML-Policy remains to be ToxicCandy, which is 
exactly AI released under
open source license with their training data hidden.

I felt OSI destines to draft something I disagree with some time ago. 
And upon the
release of OSAID-1.0, it will make a huge, irreversible impact. I could 
not convince
OSI to change their mind, but I do not want to see free software 
communities being
impacted by the OSAID and start to compromise software freedom.

No data, no trust. No data, no security. No data, no freedom[11].

Maybe it is time for us to build a consensus on how we tell whether a 
piece of
AI is DFSG-compliant or not, instead of waiting for ftp-masters to 
interpret those
binary blobs case-by-case.

Do we need a GR to reach a consensus?

[1] https://opensource.org/ai/drafts/the-open-source-ai-definition-1-0-rc2
[2] 
https://www.fsf.org/news/fsf-is-working-on-freedom-in-machine-learning-applications
[3] https://opensource.org/osd
[4] https://www.debian.org/social_contract
[5] 
https://salsa.debian.org/deeplearning-team/ml-policy/-/blob/master/ML-Policy.rst
[6] https://lwn.net/Articles/760142/
[7] https://discuss.opensource.org/t/training-data-access/152
[8] 
https://discuss.opensource.org/t/list-of-unaddressed-issues-of-osaid-rc2/650
[9] 
https://discuss.opensource.org/t/what-does-preferred-form-really-mean-in-open-source/625
[10] 
https://discuss.opensource.org/t/the-open-source-ish-ai-definition-osaid/580
[11] The freedom to study, change, and improve the AI.

Back to linux.debian.project | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Concerns regarding the "Open Source AI Definition" 1.0-RC2 Mo Zhou <lumin@debian.org> - 2024-10-26 20:10 +0200
  Re: Concerns regarding the "Open Source AI Definition" 1.0-RC2 Stefano Zacchiroli <zack@debian.org> - 2024-10-26 22:30 +0200
  Re: Concerns regarding the "Open Source AI Definition" 1.0-RC2 David Bremner <david@tethera.net> - 2024-10-27 14:00 +0100
    Re: Concerns regarding the "Open Source AI Definition" 1.0-RC2 Stefano Zacchiroli <zack@debian.org> - 2024-10-27 16:50 +0100
      Re: Concerns regarding the "Open Source AI Definition" 1.0-RC2 David Bremner <david@tethera.net> - 2024-10-27 17:50 +0100
  Re: Concerns regarding the "Open Source AI Definition" 1.0-RC2 Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org> - 2024-10-28 13:20 +0100
  Re: Concerns regarding the "Open Source AI Definition" 1.0-RC2 Stefano Zacchiroli <zack@debian.org> - 2024-10-29 12:20 +0100
    Re: Concerns regarding the "Open Source AI Definition" 1.0-RC2 Jeremy Stanley <fungi@yuggoth.org> - 2024-10-29 17:20 +0100
    Re: Concerns regarding the "Open Source AI Definition" 1.0-RC2 Stefano Zacchiroli <zack@debian.org> - 2024-10-29 18:30 +0100
    Re: Concerns regarding the "Open Source AI Definition" 1.0-RC2 Gunnar Wolf <gwolf@debian.org> - 2024-10-30 08:50 +0100
  Re: Concerns regarding the "Open Source AI Definition" 1.0-RC2 Gunnar Wolf <gwolf@debian.org> - 2024-10-30 08:50 +0100

csiph-web