When this discussion came up I immeditely thought of text-to-speech projects like piper, using AI generated voices derived from real persons voice data. The voice is a very specific attribute of every human. Its part of attributes that define that persons humanity. Same goes for the face, the fingerprint, the eyes, the movements, the genome. All these data are very specific and in summa defines a person (although there are probably more factors, just these came to mind). It also is already used to identify a person. If training data involves the core of a humans personhood - as mentioned above - it cannot be open-sourced or otherwise free. Consent does not matter. It belongs to that person and nobody else, period. I deeply believe that there are borders we are not allowed to cross, no matter how noble the cause. Do we still want to positively distinguish AI projects whose code, parameters, weights and adjustments are free? Yes I do and IMHO OSI has the same goal. That's why I think that OSAID is on the right track. They could have worded things better and they could have more precisely distinguished different types of training data but in light of time contraints (EU AI Act) I think they did the best they could. Will Debian accept a GR that requires all training data to be free, including training data that belongs to the core of human dignity? That would be disturbing. And in fact practically lobotomize good projects. Am 25.01.25 um 17:37 schrieb M. Zhou:
On Sat, 2025-01-25 at 17:08 +0100, Sam Johnston wrote:The best time to do this was last year around the OSAID 1.0 release. The next best time is now. Do you need our help?I lean towards making things simpler. Yes I disagree with OSI's decision on OSAID, and the definition does not guarantee freedom at all. But a bold move towards picking a fight against OSI on this matter through Debian General Resolution sounds terrible and reckless to me. I'll focus on a simpler topic for the GR: "how does Debian community interpret DFSG and software freedom against the AI model and software?" I'll draft from a pure technical point of view. Neutral to individuals and organizations, without commenting on how others think and do. In that case it is as simply as elaborating the "toxic candy" case, and analyzing the OSAID's implication from a technical point of view. In that sense, things will be more constructive and doable. FSF will also able to learn from Debian's GR discussion. I'll put my limited energy on this matter towards such direction.