Yeah, it ought to be owned by the people who contributed the work that trained it. But that’s socialism. … No really, that would literally be socialism.
Comment on Authors Are Furious After Finding Their Works on List of Books Used To Train AI
lloram239@feddit.de 1 year agoshould be open source by law.
That doesn’t make sense. The “source” of the AI model is the publically available information, which the creators have to right to redistribute.
The rules of Open Source simply do not work for AI models. You’d have to come up with some other rules.
Franzia@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 year ago
Soundhole@lemm.ee 1 year ago
My friend, there are already numerous open source models out there. It’s a thing.
lloram239@feddit.de 1 year ago
The whole legal situation around AI models isn’t clear and common Open Source licenses are an ill fit for them because you aren’t distributing the source, but just a binary blob. You can’t just take any random accumulation of data and slap a Open Source license on it, especially when that accumulation is the result of proprietary data, incompatible licenses and all that.
Most people don’t care and just remix everything as they please, but just because you can download for free something doesn’t make it Open Source. Furthermore a lot of the models exclude commercial use or otherwise restrict the use in ways that are incompatible with the Open Source definition.
Has any of the model made it into Debian yet?
Soundhole@lemm.ee 1 year ago
Oh, okay. Well you should tell IBM that, they’re clearly confused.
lloram239@feddit.de 11 months ago
They are, just like a lot of other people. For example they cite LLaMa 2 as a popular open source model, while it restricts commercial use.
dack@lemmy.world 11 months ago
What do you define as “source” for an AI model? Training code? Training data set?