{"id":14329,"date":"2024-09-24T10:19:23","date_gmt":"2024-09-24T10:19:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/dailyai.com\/?p=14329"},"modified":"2024-09-24T10:19:23","modified_gmt":"2024-09-24T10:19:23","slug":"open-source-initiative-disagrees-with-meta-on-open-ai","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dailyai.com\/fr\/2024\/09\/open-source-initiative-disagrees-with-meta-on-open-ai\/","title":{"rendered":"L'Open Source Initiative n'est pas d'accord avec Meta sur l'IA \"ouverte"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Open Source Initiative (OSI) has released an updated draft definition of what constitutes open-source AI and says Meta\u2019s models don\u2019t qualify despite the company\u2019s claims.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Mark Zuckerberg has been vocal about Meta\u2019s commitment to what he says is open-source AI. However, while models like Llama 3.1 are less opaque than the proprietary models from OpenAI or Google, discussions in the OSI community suggest Meta is using the term loosely.<\/p>\n

At an online public town hall event<\/a> on Friday, the OSI discussed the criteria it believes a truly open-source AI model should conform to. The OSI refers to these criteria as \u201c4 Freedoms\u201d and says an open-source AI \u201cis an AI system made available under terms and in a way that grant the freedoms to:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Use the system for any purpose and without having to ask for permission.<\/li>\n
  2. Study how the system works and inspect its components.<\/li>\n
  3. Modify the system for any purpose, including to change its output.<\/li>\n
  4. Share the system for others to use with or without modifications, for any purpose.\u201d<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    To be able to modify an AI model, the OSI\u2019s open AI definition<\/a> says the weights and source code should be open, and the training data set should be available.<\/p>\n

    Meta\u2019s license imposes some restrictions on how its models can be used and it has declined to release the training data it used to train its models. If you accept that the OSI is the custodian of what “open-source” means, then the implication is that Meta distorts the truth when it calls its models \u201copen\u201d.<\/p>\n

    The OSI is a California public benefit corporation that relies on community input to develop open-source standards. Some in that community have accused Mark Zuckerberg of \u201copen washing\u201d Meta\u2019s models and bullying the industry into accepting his version rather than the OSI\u2019s definition.<\/p>\n

    Chairman of Open Source Group Japan, Shuji Sado said \u201cIt\u2019s possible that Zuckerberg has a different definition of Open Source than we do,\u201d and suggested that the unclear legal landscape around AI training data and copyright could be the reason for this.<\/p>\n

    \n

    Open Source AI Definition \u2013 Weekly update September 23 https:\/\/t.co\/flbb3yGCmx<\/a><\/p>\n

    \u2014 Open Source Initiative @osi@opensource.org (@OpenSourceOrg) September 23, 2024<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n