Re: Bits from /me: A humble draft policy on "deep learning v.s. freedom"

[Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org>]

>>>>> "Andy" == Andy Simpkins <rattusrattus@debian.org> writes:

    Andy>     *unless* we can reproduce the same results, from the same
    Andy> training data,     you cannot classify as group 1, "Free
    Andy> Model", because verification that     training has been
    Andy> carried out on the dataset explicitly licensed under a    
    Andy> free software license can not be achieved.  This should be
    Andy> treated as a     severe bug and the entire suite should be
    Andy> classified as group 2,     "ToxicCandy Model", until such time
    Andy> that verification is possible.

I don't think that's entirely true.
If we've done the training we can have confidence that it's free.
Reproducibility is still an issue, but is no more or less an issue than
with any other software.


Consider how we treat assets for games or web applications.  And yes
there are some confusing areas there and areas where we'd like to
improve.  But let's be consistent in what we demand from various
communities to be part of Debian.  Let's not penalize people for being
new and innovative.


--Sam