Open Source AI Definition – Weekly update September 23

Draft v.0.0.9 of the Open Source AI Definition is available for comments

@nemobis points out that the term “skilled person” in the Open Source AI Definition needs clarification, especially when considering different legal systems. The term could lead to misinterpretations and suggests adjusting the wording to focus on access to data. Additionally, the term “substantially equivalent system” also requires a more precise definition.
@shujisado adds that in Japan, the term “skilled person” is linked to patent law, which could complicate its interpretation. He proposes using a simpler term, like “person skilled in technology,” to avoid unnecessary debate.
@stefano asks for suggestions for a better alternative to “skilled person,” such as “practitioner” or “AI practitioner.”
@kjetilk jokingly suggests lowering the bar to “any random person with a computer,” emphasizing the importance of accessibility in open source, allowing anyone to engage regardless of formal training.
@samj highlights that byte-for-byte reproducibility is unrealistic, as randomness and hardware variability make exact replication unachievable, similar to how different binaries perform equivalently despite differing checksums.
@samj notes the existence of models like StarCoder2 and OLMo as examples of Open Source AI, refuting the claim that no models meet the standard. He stresses the need for the definition to encourage the development of new models rather than settling for an inadequate status quo.

@kjetilk reflects on Mark Zuckerberg’s blog post about Llama 3.1, where Zuckerberg claims that “Open Source AI Is the Path Forward.” He points out that while it’s easy to agree with Zuckerberg’s sentiment, Llama 3.1 isn’t truly open source and wouldn’t meet the criteria for compliance under the OSAID. This raises important questions about how to engage with Meta: should the open-source community push them away, or guide them toward creating OSAID-compliant models? Furthermore, @kjetilk wonders how this affects perceptions of open source, especially in light of EU legislation and the broader governance issues around open source.
@shujisado responds by noting that the Open Source Initiative (OSI) has already made it clear that Llama 2 (and by extension Llama 3.1) does not meet the Open Source definition, despite Zuckerberg’s claims. He suggests that Zuckerberg might be using a different definition of “open source,” particularly given the unclear legal landscape around AI training data and copyright. In his view, the creation of the Open Source AI Definition (OSAID) is the community’s formal response to Meta’s claims.