On Mon, Oct 28, 2024 at 09:53:31PM +0200, Jonathan Carter wrote: > The companies [...] want to restrict what you can actually use it > for, and call it open source? And then OSI makes a definition that > seems carefully crafted to let these kind of licenses slip through? The licensing terms for the Meta Llama models are indeed horrific, but I don't understand your point here. In order to be OSAID compliant, Meta will precisely have to change those licensing terms and make them DFSG-compliant. That would be a *good* thing for the world and would fix the main thing you are upset about. And Meta is not liking that idea. Meta is, right now, lobbying EU regulators to convince them that what should count as "open source AI" for the purposes of the EU AI Act is their (Meta's) version, rather than OSAID. I have personally fought (and lost) during the OSAID definition process to make access to training data mandatory in the definition. So while I'm certainly not against criticizing OSAID, we should do that for the right reasons. Cheers PS To make Llama models OSAID-compliant Meta, in addition to (1) changing the model license, will also have to: (2) provide "a listing of all publicly available training data and where to obtain it", and (3) release under DFSG-compatible terms their entire training pipeline (currently unreleased). I don't think they will ever get there. But if they do, these would also be good things for the world. Not *as good* as having access to the entire training dataset, but good nonetheless. -- Stefano Zacchiroli . zack@upsilon.cc . https://upsilon.cc/zack _. ^ ._ Full professor of Computer Science o o o \/|V|\/ Télécom Paris, Polytechnic Institute of Paris o o o </> <\> Co-founder & CSO Software Heritage o o o o /\|^|/\ Mastodon: https://mastodon.xyz/@zacchiro '" V "'
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature