Nils Adermann on Nostr: After the panel on "when are AI systems free/open" at #FOSDEM I struggle to see why ...
After the panel on "when are AI systems free/open" at #FOSDEM I struggle to see why we don't just equate ML/training to compilers. They take data (source code for compiler, corpus for AI) and turn them into a decision making program (machine code for compiler, weights for AI model). Clearly a program doesn't become open source by distributing it in binary form/weights, and a whole AI system can only be open source if all of its components are: compiler (ML/training process) and program (model)?
Published at
2025-02-01 13:35:24 UTCEvent JSON
{
"id": "03aa923bdb082cc5b5f969c62b07c7c0b0264172595a2d869a57fa4de3455810",
"pubkey": "f63760e60ebbc68224f1c0cb55ee3daabb1bc8eb67f378bc1f46ad2b09ba7f8b",
"created_at": 1738416924,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"t",
"fosdem"
],
[
"proxy",
"https://phpc.social/users/naderman/statuses/113928891594272418",
"activitypub"
]
],
"content": "After the panel on \"when are AI systems free/open\" at #FOSDEM I struggle to see why we don't just equate ML/training to compilers. They take data (source code for compiler, corpus for AI) and turn them into a decision making program (machine code for compiler, weights for AI model). Clearly a program doesn't become open source by distributing it in binary form/weights, and a whole AI system can only be open source if all of its components are: compiler (ML/training process) and program (model)?",
"sig": "2171e11bc85a03da37ed55f38c1ad2397d700033c062fb3dcff76661bda43f220a032923750ade43d46ac873e42954384f871ddc1285e8f4efe742f3cf31e203"
}
