Why Mark Zuckerberg wants to redefine open source so badly
-
I don't think any of our classical open licenses from the 80s and 90s were ever created with AI in mind. They are inadequate. An update or new one is needed.
Stallman, spit out the toe cheese and get to work.
-
I mean, didn't he famously steal the idea?
-
How about a no.
-
when the data used to train the AI is copyrighted, how do you make it open source? it's a valid question.
one thing is the model or the code that trains the AI. the other thing is the data that produces the weights which determines how the model predicts
of course, the obligatory fuck meta and the zuck and all that but there is a legal conundrum here we need to address
-
I dont give a fuck what you want mark. nobody is. what i want is for you to fuck off.
-
I mean, you can have open source weights, training data, and code/model architecture. If you've done all three it's an open model, otherwise you state open "component". Seems pretty straightforward to me.
-
Because he's an insecure and greedy child.
-
The OSI have had a go: https://opensource.org/ai/open-source-ai-definition
-
I have some Aladeen news for you my friend
-
when the data used to train the AI is copyrighted, how do you make it open source?
When part of my code base belongs to someone else, how do I make it open source? By open sourcing the parts that belong to me, while clarifying that it's only partially open source.
-
No, because that would no longer be open in the open source sense.
It's either open for everyone, or it isn't open.
-
You’re right. I forgot about the lawsuit and settlement (for $65m). They’re both frauds.
-
I understand the same way and I think there's a lot of gray area which makes it hard to just say "the data also needs to be open source for the code to be open source". What would that mean for postgreSQL? Does it magically turn closed source if I don't share what's in my db? What would it mean to every open source software that stores and uses that stored data?
I'm not saying the AI models shouldn't be open source, I'm saying reigning in the models needs to be done very carefully because it's very easy to overreach and open up a whole other can of worms.
-
And that’s literally what the article says lol I don’t know why you were downvoted.
Emily Omier, a well-regarded open-source start-up consultant, emphasized that open source is a binary standard set by the Open Source Initiative (OSI), not a spectrum. "Either you're open source, or you are not.
-
He's also a sociopath who will say and do anything to get his way.
-
His "idea" was about how to monetize a concept already in existence on MySpace, by completely ignoring any ethical constraints. That, and a snobbery-based product launch through the Ivies.
-
Billionaires are a cancer on the body politic.
-
Embrace, extend, extinguish.
-
No, free as in beer is not a necessary condition for being open-source. And if the code is not free as in beer, the pricing model can be whatever the hell you want, as long as the code is shared when the user is licensed.
-
The binary mentioned is different. Omier was saying either you share all the source code, or it's not open-source. You don't get to retain some proprietary blob for an essential component and still say the whole app is open-source. Pricing is an entirely different question.
