Hello Stefan and everyone else, (apologies for such a delay, I was away on family holidays at the end of the year)
I’m happy to share some thoughts on these definitions, just want to make a caveat that I cannot speak on behalf of all the participants at the event, where these issues were discussed relatively briefly. I think that the starting point is an idea that such collective definitions, attempts to standardize our understanding of openness, are in principle good, as they strengthen collective action in support of openness in the space of AI development. I am aware of the criticism of specifically the Open Source AI definition (https://opensource.org/ai) as eroding openness (as it does not mandate open source AI systems to release openly training data). Although the definition does not go as far as equating commons with resources accessible online, as it has strong data transparency requirements. You can read my take about the definition here: https://openfuture.eu/blog/the-open-source-ai-definition-is-a-step-forward-in-defining-openness-in-ai/ - I think of it as a step in a longer process, and I’m mindful that there are other definitions that have a stronger position on open data. The one I would highlight is the standard for AI as a Digital Public Goods, developed by the DPGA. I also want to highlight another effor to reach some form of collective positions on AI and the commons, which are the principles on AI and the Commons, which were developed collaboratively around the CC Summit in 2023 (with some follow up work in 2024, through the Alignment Assembly on AI and the Commons). i think this process did a good job in reflecting various positions, and concerns (here’s the report: https://openfuture.eu/publication/alignment-assembly-on-ai-and-the-commons-outcomes-and-learnings/). Follow up work on the principles was one of the next steps discussed at the Commons Causes meeting in Katowice. Best, Alek -- Director of Strategy, Open Future | openfuture.eu | +48 889 660 444 At Open Future, we tackle the Paradox of Open: paradox.openfuture.eu/ > On 16 Dec 2024, at 19:23, Stefan Kaufmann (WMDE) > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Am 16.12.24 um 12:14 schrieb Franziska Putz: > >> The report <https://openfuture.eu/publication/open-movements-commons- >> causes/> from the Common(s) Causes day zero event has been published. >> […] > > I really enjoyed reading the report, kudos for the work that went into it! > > Could you expand a bit on the idea of the Open Source AI definitions being a > positive factor? My understanding so far has been that the current efforts in > this field could further erode the idea of “open” meaning some sort of > commons (that had already been eroded by the “open source” vs “free software“ > schism), as opposed to just “something you can access through the Internet or > WWW” > > regards, > -stk > -- > Stefan Kaufmann (er) > Referent Politik und öffentlicher Sektor > > Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23–24 | 10963 Berlin | Tel. > +49 (0)30-577 11 62-0 | <https://wikimedia.de> > > Bleiben Sie auf dem neuesten Stand! Aktuelle Nachrichten und spannende > Geschichten rund um Wikimedia, Wikipedia und Freies Wissen im Newsletter: > <https://www.wikimedia.de/newsletter/> > > Unsere Vision ist eine Welt, in der alle Menschen am Wissen der Menschheit > teilhaben, es nutzen und mehren können. Helfen Sie uns dabei! > https://spenden.wikimedia.de > > Wikimedia Deutschland — Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V. > Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Charlottenburg, VR 23855. Als > gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, > Steuernummer 27/029/42207. Geschäftsführende Vorstände: Franziska Heine, Dr. > Christian Humborg. > > _______________________________________________ > Publicpolicy mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
_______________________________________________ Publicpolicy mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
