I am confused by the new Open Source AI definition not requiring sharing the training data.
From the official FAQ of the OSI: "This approach would relegate Open Source AI to a niche of AI trainable only on open data [...] That niche would be tiny [...]"
I fail to see the problem here. Wasn't FOSS a small niche before GNU picked up steam?
(Also, if I'm not mistaken, the word should be "trained", not "trainable". A tiny but important difference)
Can someone enlighten me on how this is a sensible idea please? I am open to different opinions on the matter.
TIL that a #BlackBox #AI can be defined as #OpenSource.
Granting the “freedom to fine tune” cannot be enough to qualify as Open Source AI just like granting the “freedom to configure” cannot be enough to qualify as Open Source Software.
Yet, for #OSI it's enough.
And you can't provide effective solutions to the problem they pretend to see into making training data available.
Or you will be silenced.
#OpenSourceAI #OpenWashing #OpenWashingAI
#OSS #OSAI #AIAct #BigTech #GAFAM
When we look at applying Open Source principles to the subject of AI, copyright law comes into play, especially for the topic of training data access. Open datasets have been a continuous discussion point in the collaborative process of writing the Open Source AI Definition. I would like to explain why the concept of data information is a viable alternative for the purposes of the OSAID.
Today’s picture of Tropical Cyclone #Osai in the South Pacific Ocean
Tropical Cyclone #Osai this morning in the South Pacific Ocean. Winds up to 95 km/h.
Tropical Cyclone #Osai has developed in the South Pacific Ocean.
Get the latest updates here: https://zoom.earth/storms/osai-2024/
Ryan Daws 🤓
Djoerd Hiemstra 🍉
Tommaso Gagliardoni
Shamar
Zoom Earth
The Wubster
Ford Eytou