Thanks so much for sharing this background Sam. The "Openness" vs. "Completeness" matrix is quite a helpful way to contextualize it.
I also agree that, as far as my layman's understanding goes, I don't see any direct conflict between the OSI and MOF. As I see it, the OSI tells us WHAT open-source AI should allow (use, modify, etc.) while the MOF tells us HOW that might be accomplished (sharing the model, sharing the tooling, sharing the science).
And it's funny that the original OSI author thinks the AI Definition isn't strict enough, while Meta is already accusing it of being too strict. Just goes to show that there's a whole spectrum of conflicting perspectives, which is why I guess it's so hard to arrive at a definition that has broad buy-in!
I kind of hate meta. Might be a bit irrational but, whatever. So, I've been suspicious of their open source high ground with llama. We're so open, ooooh lookit us, we're better. Now I kinda get it and I'm off to Reddit to watch the show
I mean, what does “strongly” even mean here? That's a bit vague. Suspicions aren't powerlifters, they can't be “strong” in a literal sense. You gotta educate yourself before bringing that energy here, bro.
OSI or MOF? Why not both^W neither? https://samjohnston.org/2024/11/24/openness-vs-completeness-data-dependencies-and-open-source-ai/
The original author of the Open Source Definition has views too: https://postopen.org/documents/real-open-source-ai
Thanks so much for sharing this background Sam. The "Openness" vs. "Completeness" matrix is quite a helpful way to contextualize it.
I also agree that, as far as my layman's understanding goes, I don't see any direct conflict between the OSI and MOF. As I see it, the OSI tells us WHAT open-source AI should allow (use, modify, etc.) while the MOF tells us HOW that might be accomplished (sharing the model, sharing the tooling, sharing the science).
And it's funny that the original OSI author thinks the AI Definition isn't strict enough, while Meta is already accusing it of being too strict. Just goes to show that there's a whole spectrum of conflicting perspectives, which is why I guess it's so hard to arrive at a definition that has broad buy-in!
I kind of hate meta. Might be a bit irrational but, whatever. So, I've been suspicious of their open source high ground with llama. We're so open, ooooh lookit us, we're better. Now I kinda get it and I'm off to Reddit to watch the show
Sounds like you can bring that outrage and passion into a Reddit thread of your own! Word some strong opinions!
Oh no bro. Ain’t nobody got time for that.
Thousands of Reddit commenters beg to differ!
I am ever impressed with the mad dog energy of reddittors
I strongly suspect this isn't the last time people will argue over definitions without realizing that's what they're doing.
I mean, what does “strongly” even mean here? That's a bit vague. Suspicions aren't powerlifters, they can't be “strong” in a literal sense. You gotta educate yourself before bringing that energy here, bro.
I see what you're doing, and I won't fall into your vague trap. BTW, you didn't even use the word "vague" correctly there.
We are here ALL YEAR FOLKS.