Favorite

The Open Source Initiative (OSI) is running a blog series to introduce some of the people who have been actively involved in the Open Source AI Definition (OSAID) co-design process. The co-design methodology allows for the integration of diverging perspectives into one just, cohesive and feasible standard. Support and contribution from a significant and broad group of stakeholders is imperative to the Open Source process and is proven to bring diverse issues to light, deliver swift outputs and garner community buy-in.

This series features the voices of the volunteers who have helped shape and are shaping the Definition.

Meet Deshni Govender

What’s your background related to Open Source and AI?

I am the South Africa country focal point for the German Development Cooperation initiative “FAIR Forward – Artificial Intelligence for All” and the project strives for a more open, inclusive and sustainable approach to AI on an international level. More significantly, we seek to democratize the field of AI, to enable more robust, inclusive and self-determined AI ecosystems. Having worked in private sector and then now being in international development, my attention has been drawn to the disparity between the power imbalances of proprietary vs open and how this results in economic barriers for global majority, but also creates further harms and challenges for vulnerable populations and marginalized sectors, especially women. This fuelled my journey of working towards bridging the digital divide and digital gender gap through democratizing technology.

Some projects I am working on in this space include developing data governance models for African NLP (with Masakhane Foundation) and piloting new community-centered, equitable license types for voice data collection for language communities (with Mozilla).

What motivated you to join this co-design process to define Open Source AI?

I have experienced first hand the power imbalances that exist in geo-politics, but also in the context of economics where global minority countries shape the ‘global trajectory’ of AI without global voices. The definition of open means different things to different people / ecosystems / communities, and all voices should be heard and considered. Defining open means the values and responsibilities attached to it should be considered in a diverse manner, else the context of ‘open’ is in and of itself a hypocrisy.

Why do you think AI should be Open Source?

An enabling ecosystem is one that benefits all the stakeholders and ecosystem components. Inclusive efforts must be outlaid to explore and find tangible actions or potential avenues on how to reconcile the tension between openness, democracy and representation in AI training data whilst preserving community agency, diverse values and stakeholder rights. However, the misuse, colonization and misinterpretation of data continues unabated. Much of African culture and knowledge is passed down generations by story telling, art, dance and poetry and is done so verbally or through different ways of documentation, and in local manners and nuances of language. It is rarely digitized and certainly not in English. Language is culture and culture is context, yet somehow we find LLMs being used as an agent for language and context. Solutions and information are provided about and for communities but not with those communities, and the lack of transparency and post-colonial manipulation of data and culture is both irresponsible and should be considered a human rights violation.

Additionally, Open Source and open systems enable nations to develop inclusive AI policy processes so that policymakers from Global South countries can draw from peer experience on tackling their AI policies and AI-related challenges to find their own approaches to AI policy. This will also challenge dependence from and domination by western centric / Global North countries on AI policies to push a narrative or agenda on ‘what’ and ‘how’; i.e. Africa / Asia / LATAM must learn from us how to do X (since we hold the power, we can determine the extent and cost – exploitative). We aim for government self-determination and to empower countries, so that they may collectively have a voice on the global stage.

Has your personal definition of Open Source AI changed along the way? What new perspectives or ideas did you encounter while participating in the co-design process?

My personal definition has not changed but it has been refreshing to witness the diverse views on how open is defined. The idea that behavior (e.g. of tech oligopolies) could reshape the way we define an idea or concept was thought-provoking. It means therefore that as emerging technology evolves, the idea of ‘open’ could change still in the future, depending on the trajectory of emerging technology and the values that society holds and attributes.

What do you think the primary benefit will be once there is a clear definition of Open Source AI?

A clear and more inclusive definition of Open Source AI would commerce a wave towards making data injustice, data invisibility, data extractivism, and data colonialism more visible and for which there exists repercussions. It would spur open, inclusive and responsible repositories of data, data use, and more importantly accuracy of use and interpretation. I am hoping that this would also spur innovative ways on how to track and monitor / evaluate use of Open Source data, so that local and small businesses are encouraged to develop in an Open Source while still being able to track and monitor players who extract and commercialize without giving back.

Ideally it would begin the process (albeit transitional) of bridging the digital divide between source and resource countries (i.e. global majority where data is collected from versus those who receive and process data for commercial benefit).

What do you think are the next steps for the community involved in Open Source AI?

If we make everything Open Source, it encourages sharing and use in developing and deploying, offers transparency and shared learning but enables freeriding. However the corollary is that closed models such as copyright prioritize proprietary information and commercialisation but can limit shared innovation, and does not uphold the concept of communal efforts, community agency and development. How do we quell this tension? I would like to see the Open Source community working to find practical and actionable ways in which we can make this work (open, responsible and innovative but enabling community benefit / remuneration).

How to get involved

The OSAID co-design process is open to everyone interested in collaborating. There are many ways to get involved:

• Join the working groups: be part of a team to evaluate various models against the OSAID.
• Join the forum: support and comment on the drafts, record your approval or concerns to new and existing threads.
• Comment on the latest draft: provide feedback on the latest draft document directly.
• Follow the weekly recaps: subscribe to our newsletter and blog to be kept up-to-date.
• Join the town hall meetings: participate in the online public town hall meetings to learn more and ask questions.
• Join the workshops and scheduled conferences: meet the OSI and other participants at in-person events around the world.

Click Here to View Original Source (opensource.org)