Purists are pushing back against Meta’s efforts to set its own standard on the definition of open-source AI. Stefano Maffulli, head of the OSI, says Mr Zuckerberg “is really bullying the industry to follow his lead”.
The Open Source Initiative (OSI) recently unveiled its latest draft definition for “open source AI,” aiming to clarify the ambiguous use of the term in the fast-moving field. The move comes as some companies like Meta release trained AI language model weights and code with usage restrictions while using the “open source” label. This has sparked intense debates among free-software advocates about what truly constitutes “open source” in the context of AI.
Unlike proprietary models, which can be restrictive and expensive, open-source models are freely available for modification and integration.
A new working definition of what the term means for AI could change that and has just been released by the Open Source Initiative (OSI), the self-appointed stewards of the term.
The OSI has been working diligently on creating a comprehensive definition for open-source AI, similar to the Open-Source Definition for software. This critical effort addresses the growing need for clarity in determining what makes up an open-source AI system at a time when many companies claim their AI models are open source without really being open at all, such as Meta’s Llama 3.1
Open-source AI is everywhere right now. The problem is, no one agrees on what it actually is. Now we may finally have an answer. The Open Source Initiative (OSI), the self-appointed arbiters of what it means to be open source, has released a new definition, which it hopes will help lawmakers develop regulations to protect consumers from AI risks.
For the past two years, the Open Source Initiative (OSI) has been working on developing a definition for Open Source AI that the industry can use to determine which models are actually considered open, and it has a new draft of the definition to share as it nears the final release in October.
The Open Source Initiative (OSI), the organization widely seen as responsible for arbitrating openness standards, published the latest version of its definition of open-source AI on Thursday. The document comes after months of consulting with various developers, academics, and other concerned parties on a roadshow of workshops around the world.
The OSI has been working diligently on creating a comprehensive definition for open-source AI, similar to the Open-Source Definition for software. This critical effort addresses the growing need for clarity in determining what makes up an open-source AI system at a time when many companies claim their AI models are open source without really being open at all, such as Meta’s Llama 3,1.
One response has come from the Open Source Initiative — which laid out the definition of open-source software more than 20 years ago. This week, it produced a near-final definition that could help to shape how the field develops.
Many generative AI models claim to be open source when they really aren’t. One Cornell paper describes the confusion around AI model restrictions as “open washing.” The US government is scratching its head, weighing the risks of open LLMs. Adding to the murkiness is the many lawsuits over alleged copyright infringement by AI model owners still working their way through various courts.
AI can’t exist without open source, but the top AI vendors are unwilling to commit to open-sourcing their programs and data sets. To complicate matters further, defining open-source AI is a messy issue that has yet to be settled.
