Re: Bits from /me: A humble draft policy on "deep learning v.s. freedom"
On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 11:37:41PM -0700, Mo Zhou wrote:
> - The datasets used for training a "ToxicCandy" may be
> private/non-free and not everybody can access them. (This case is more
> likely a result of problematic upstream licensing, but it sometimes
> happens).
>
> One got a free model from internet. That little candy tastes sweet.
> One wanted to make this candy at home with the provided recipe, but
> surprisingly found out that non-free ingredients are inevitable.
> -- ToxicCandy
I'm not so sure this model would be unacceptable. It's no different than
a game's image being a photo of a tree in your garden -- not reproducible by
anyone but you (or someone you invite). Or, a wordlist frequency produced
by analyzing results of a google search.
At some point, the work becomes an entity on its own rather than the result
of processing some dataset.
A more ridiculous argument: the input is a project requirement sheet, the
neural network being four pieces of wetware, working for 3 months. Do you
insist on _this_ being reproducible, or would you accept the product as free
software? Sufficiently advanced artificial intelligence might be not that
different.
喵!
--
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ Latin: meow 4 characters, 4 columns, 4 bytes
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Greek: μεου 4 characters, 4 columns, 8 bytes
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋ Runes: ᛗᛖᛟᚹ 4 characters, 4 columns, 12 bytes
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ Chinese: 喵 1 character, 2 columns, 3 bytes <-- best!
Reply to: