Conversation
Jarkko Sakkinen
jarkko
Edited 1 month ago
What is this:
https://opensource.org/ai
"Open Source" is "Open Source AI"
OK, cool.
This must be then an AI:
```
int main(void) {}
```
For me this has an appearance of a scam, and it also reflects a recent outbursts such as e.g. this one from Microsoft:
https://www.techspot.com/news/103609-microsoft-ai-ceo-content-open-web-freeware-ai.html
Not pointing out to Microsoft here in particular. It was just so arrogant, obnoxious and ignorant take from Mustafa Suleyman that it carved to my brain forever.
IT giants have put way way way too huge stakes on top of the AI game board. There's also a strong motivation to compound "Open Source" and "AI" as interchangeable concepts to justify evil corporate tactics. Right from the get go OpenAI picked up a name, which misleads by implying "openness" (with no anchor to anything actually open).
Standards share no resemblance to this eye roll trick. I read them a lot as part of my work (the most recent was DWARF4 spec few weeks ago), and I know what a standard should look like, if anything.
This is not an opinion about AI way or another but I recognize a fake standard 100% when I see one, and this is as fake as it can ever get. It could be at worst interpreted as an attack against open source and free software governance, and the values that we believe in.
RT @fsfe
https://opensource.org/ai
"Open Source" is "Open Source AI"
OK, cool.
This must be then an AI:
```
int main(void) {}
```
For me this has an appearance of a scam, and it also reflects a recent outbursts such as e.g. this one from Microsoft:
https://www.techspot.com/news/103609-microsoft-ai-ceo-content-open-web-freeware-ai.html
Not pointing out to Microsoft here in particular. It was just so arrogant, obnoxious and ignorant take from Mustafa Suleyman that it carved to my brain forever.
IT giants have put way way way too huge stakes on top of the AI game board. There's also a strong motivation to compound "Open Source" and "AI" as interchangeable concepts to justify evil corporate tactics. Right from the get go OpenAI picked up a name, which misleads by implying "openness" (with no anchor to anything actually open).
Standards share no resemblance to this eye roll trick. I read them a lot as part of my work (the most recent was DWARF4 spec few weeks ago), and I know what a standard should look like, if anything.
This is not an opinion about AI way or another but I recognize a fake standard 100% when I see one, and this is as fake as it can ever get. It could be at worst interpreted as an attack against open source and free software governance, and the values that we believe in.
RT @fsfe
2
1
2
@fsfe OSI is an org where corps say what they want or makes sense for their benefit only, and it is represented as a some kind of one voice of the open source community. This is at least how this looks like. Total and complete loose of trust to this entity.
"AI = Open Source"
You can't make this shit up. It's the most insane argument I've heard for ages.
"AI = Open Source"
You can't make this shit up. It's the most insane argument I've heard for ages.
0
1
3
@jarkko @fsfe I did not see those quoted extracts your are criticizing. Having read a draft of this definition, I disagree with the tradeoffs that are being made (like they forgo full determinism if you can get "substantially equivalent" data, and don't really care about the license of the source data), but it's at least a step in the right direction for reproduction of LLMs and other big models.
1
0
0
@jarkko it seems that the restrictions are that Data Information, Code, and Parameters "shall be made available under OSI-approved terms".
1
0
1