On 3/30/24 01:06, Akira Urushibata wrote:
[snip]
Another issue I would like to raise is that many people erroneously
believe that "artificial intelligence" is an improved form of software.
Conventional programs are accurate when properly written, but "AI"
systems work on a different principle which cannot guarantee accuracy.
Many people fail to understand this. They think: "Computers are accurate.
AI makes computers better so one with AI must also be accurate."
[snip]
Good point.
First an aside, a simple photo alone would not be enough to safely
identify a mushroom even with fully free software. When identifying a
mushroom the top, the underside, the stipe, the texture, and the
substrate or location it was growing in have to be taken into account.
Sometimes even the season and scent help. The software could start wit
the photo and then ask follow up questions thus combine "AI" with a
classical Expert System, the latter being quite good in such cases.
However, stepping back and looking at the larger problem, there are the
questions of fitness for purpose and liability with software in general.
Back in 2014, Dan Geer brought up the topic of software liability and
how to address it. Software freedom is an essential component in his
initial musings:
"""
.......................
1. If you deliver your software with complete and
buildable source code and a license that allows
disabling any functionality or code the licensee
decides, your liability is limited to a refund.
.......................
Clause one is how to avoid liability: Make it possible for
your users to inspect and chop out any and all bits of your
software they do not trust or want to run. That includes a
bill of materials ("Library ABC comes from XYZ") so that trust
has some basis, paralleling why there are ingredient lists on
processed foods.
The word "disabling" is chosen very carefully: You do not need
to give permission to change or modify how the program works,
only to disable the parts of it that the licensee does not
want or trust. Liability is limited even if the licensee never
actually looks at the source code; as long has he has received
it, you (as maker) are off the hook. All your other copyrights
are still yours to control, and your license can contain any
language and restriction you care for, leaving the situation
unchanged with respect to hardware-locking, confidentiality,
secrets , software piracy, magic numbers, etc.
Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) is obviously covered by
this clause which leaves its situation unchanged.
"""
—— http://geer.tinho.net/geer.blackhat.6viii14.txt
A lot of proprietary software, such as the mushroom guide, or any
product out of the bowels of Redmond, appear to fall into the
unfortunate category of being unfit for purpose.
And of components, I gather that the foundations for eventual liability
rules are being laid by dealing with the Software Bill of Materials
being made by so many FOSS projects of late. However, it is important
that proactive efforts be made too so that FOSS does not get painted
into a corner somehow outmaneuvered.
/Lars
_______________________________________________
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss
