The OSI lacks competence to define Open Source AI

https://samjohnston.org/2024/10/15/the-osi-lacks-competence-to-define-open-source-ai/

by rettichschnidi • 2 years ago

10 12 2 years ago

samjohnston.org

LtWorf2• 2 years ago

I'd title this as "some guy's hot take: The OSI lacks competence to define Open Source AI"

tourmalinetaco3• 2 years ago

That’s redundant. It’s obvious this is an opinion piece. And they’re not wrong either.

chowells• 2 years ago

They may not be wrong with their primary point, but they neglected to provide an argument to support it. Instead of bothering to argue, they just provide a litany of freeze peach dog whistles. Anyone who doubts that ideology's value would rather have an actual argument laid out.

samj3• 2 years ago

/me waves

zvr• 2 years ago

One of the sections ("Blind Leading the Blind") is about the blog post author asking an AI whether the OSI board had expertise in AI , and him being shocked by the answer that they do not.

In all fairness, asking the same AI the same question right now produces:

-----

Based on the search results provided, there is no explicit mention of any Open Source Initiative (OSI) team or board members claiming expertise in Artificial Intelligence. However, there are a few relevant points to note:

1. The OSI has been actively involved in initiatives related to AI, particularly in developing an Open Source AI Definition (OSAID)[1][3]. This suggests that the organization is engaging with AI-related topics, even if individual expertise is not specified.

2. The OSI board includes members with diverse backgrounds, and they are working with external experts on AI-related projects. For example, Sayeed Choudhury, an OSI board member, is leading the Open Forum for AI (OFAI) initiative at Carnegie Mellon University[1].

3. The OSI has collaborated with various stakeholders, including AI experts from organizations like Mozilla Foundation, Google, Microsoft, Hugging Face, and others, in the process of developing the Open Source AI Definition[3]. This indicates that while OSI may not have internal AI experts, they are actively engaging with AI professionals from other organizations.

4. The OSI has organized events, webinars, and podcasts featuring experts discussing AI-related topics[3]. This suggests that the organization is committed to understanding and addressing AI issues, even if they may not have in-house AI expertise.

While the OSI is clearly involved in AI-related initiatives, the search results do not provide specific information about individual OSI team or board members claiming expertise in Artificial Intelligence. The organization appears to be leveraging external expertise and collaborations to address AI-related challenges in the context of open source software.

Citations: [1] https://opensource.org/blog/the-open-source-initiative-joins... [2] https://opensource.com/article/23/3/questions-osi-board-cand... [3] https://opensource.org/deepdive [4] https://www.osler.com/en/insights/updates/osi-releases-first... [5] https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2021/6629... [6] https://www.sfi.ie/research-news/stories/ai/ [7] https://www.linkedin.com/posts/osidigital_the-osi-digital-te... [8] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_l_BREt8Afk

-----

I, for one, have no issue with the board of an organization getting external expertise for topics that they believe such external input is needed.

samj3• 2 years ago

Normally yes, but said board is taking a very liberal view of "experts"; the "co-design" process literally says "everyone is an expert" (https://jods.mitpress.mit.edu/pub/costanza-chock/release/4):

"We believe that everyone is an expert based on their own lived experience, and that we all have unique and brilliant contributions to bring to a design process."

The result is a proposed standard that does not do its one job: protect the four freedoms that define Open Source (and Free Software in general).

The OSI lacks competence to define Open Source AI

Related Stories