Salve Nexa, condivido con voi un articolo interessante che sintetizza gli sforzi dell'OSI a sostegno della Open Source AI definition (OSAID). https://samjohnston.org/2024/10/15/the-osi-lacks-competence-to-define-open-s... Riporto qui solo due passaggi che non mi sono accessibili altrove. Il primo è un commento di Bruce Perens, co-fondatore dell'OSI """ I am the creator of the original Open Source Definition, and support Amanda’s view that the Open Source AI Definition is flawed, that OSI hasn’t done a great job and so weren’t necessarily the best team to do this. In my opinion, the result is less than Open Source. I have supported Amanda’s views for a year, since she walked off of the OSI board, and told me she felt they were going about it wrong and nobody would listen. You can apply the original Open Source Definition to machine learning and I feel it works better. You need to apply it to two pieces: the software (and possibly specialized hardware), and the training data. The training data is “source code” for the purposes of the Open Source definition. This is complicated because some models evolve with each question asked, etc., and thus the training data is ever changing and becomes very large. """ Chiaro e semplice. Il secondo è il post censurato dall'OSI che non avevo avuto modo di leggere e che l'autore ha ottenuto dalla pericolosissima Cora Papadakis: """ It turns out she had posted this reply to another community member:
OSD cannot be defined by people who could not build software. OSAID cannot be defined by people who could not build AI.
To be fair, OSI has acknowledged its ignorance on the subject many times and has summoned various experts, including from Google, Meta, and Microsoft, to help co-design OSAID.
Which is a bit like 1998 Perens and ESR asking Balmer’s Microsoft how to define open source, but without knowing how to program themselves. """
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Giacomo