The Open Source Initiative (OSI) is on a mission to define “Open Source AI.” It wants to be able to provide a framework that can be used to determine if an AI system is open source or not, as there is not currently a framework for doing so.
The OSI is planning a series of workshops to help it refine its working definition of open source AI, with support from Amazon, Cisco, Google and the Sloan Foundation.
The Open Source Initiative is leading an open, community-driven process to detail how the open source definition applies in the context of an AI world. But even without that process, we already know that Meta’s custom license, by restricting usage and the ability to create derivative works, violates multiple tenets of both the current definition of open source and any final work of the OSI community that’s specific to AI.
Open source implies that developers can use the models how they choose, unfettered. But in the case of Llama 3 — as with Llama 2 — Meta has imposed certain licensing restrictions.
The Open Source Initiative is attempting to draft a definition of open source AI. But this will not stop tech companies adding restrictions to AI models they refer to as open.
Few inventions in history have been as important for human civilisation and as poorly understood as the internet. It developed not as a centrally planned system, but as a patchwork of devices and networks connected by makeshift interfaces. Decentralisation makes it possible to run such a complex system. But every so often comes a chilling reminder that the whole edifice is uncomfortably precarious.
Civil society and academics are joining together to defend AI openness and transparency. Mozilla and the Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT), along with members of civil society and academia, have united to underscore the importance of openness and transparency in AI. Nearly 50 signatories sent a letter to Secretary Gina Raimondo in response to the U.S. Commerce Department’s request for comment on openness in AI models.
On the face of it, open-source AI promises a future where anyone can take part in the technology’s development. That could accelerate innovation, boost transparency, and give users greater control over systems that could soon reshape many aspects of our lives. But what even is it? What makes an AI model open source, and what disqualifies it?
Leading in-memory database vendor Redis is switching to a dual-license approach, imposing far more restrictive terms. It is not the first time Redis has rewritten its terms. Back in 2018 it adjusted the license on some of its modules in ways which upset a quite a few open source luminaries.
Open source AI, where the source code is publicly available for use, modification, and distribution, encourages innovation by allowing developers to build upon existing algorithms and models. In contrast, closed-source AI restricts the source code to private use, with only the owning company having the ability to make changes.
“OSI and the Open Policy Alliance commend CISA for engaging with the open source software community and appreciate the opportunity to participate in this week’s Open Source Security Summit. Including less represented, small open source non-profits into the discussion will facilitate workable, practical policies and practices, building upon the strength of the collaborative model of Open Source,” said Deb Bryant, US Policy Director, Open Source Initiative.
In December 2023, the authors of this blog, David Edelsohn and Ofer Hermoni, had an enriching opportunity to attend a thought-provoking session at the AI.Dev event, titled “Towards the Definition of Open Source AI,” moderated by the insightful Mer Joyce and Ruth Suehle. The authors and other AI and open-source professionals joined together to create an initial proposal for the definition of Open Source AI.
