Re: [draft] need your help on the AI-DFSG general resolution prepration
Hi Mo,
your effort in driving this is much appreciated.
There's a second thread going on ("A different Take on AI") where many
have chimed into the deeper specific issues, so I'll include my specific
replies there, and here will only reply to formalities:
On 2025-02-02 06:56, M. Zhou wrote:
> (2) are the options clear enough for vote? Considering lots of the readers may
> not be faimiliar with how AI is created. I tried to explain it, as well as
> the implication if some components are missing.
> (5) what is the actionable outcome of this generaal resolution?
In a similar vein as Holger's reply, I would factor out the
non-normative, non-actionable part, possibly even into a separate document.
Precisely because of point (5): because this is a GR, reading the text
from the beginning, I kept thinking that I'm reading text that might be
material to the normative/actionable choices I'd be voting on.
For the final draft, it might help to start backwards, by beginning with
a blank document and adding the three proposals (which I think turned
out well), then adding context that would be material to making an
informed decision, and moving anything "merely" supplemental to a
separate section or document.
This, of course, only once discussion has produced the clarity that you
seek. I assume that at that point, others (including myself) might be
able to help contribute to improving the draft.
Best,
Christian
Re: [draft] need your help on the AI-DFSG general resolution prepration
(1) do you know any important but missing reference materials? You may want to include references to currents cases in court, like: https://www.npr.org/2025/01/14/nx-s1-5258952/new-york-times-openai-microsoft Maybe not that particular one, but something to the effect. By supporting proposal B: "Toxic Candy" is free software, I believe one would be taking side on those disputes, against creators that believe that their work is being used as training data and has not been dutifully honored. Otherwise, the proposals look impeccable. Thank you On Sun, 2 Feb 2025 at 01:57, M. Zhou wrote: > Hi all, > > I heard that people were looking for me during FOSDEM. > > I spent a couple of hours and finally get something draft-ish > for the previously mentioned general resolution on the software > freedom interpolation with respect to AI software. > > https://salsa.debian.org/lumin/gr-ai-dfsg > (I turned the issues on. Feel free to open issues there) > > This is an early draft. Before really posting to -vote, I need your > help on the following aspect: > > (1) do you know any important but missing reference materials? > > (2) are the options clear enough for vote? Considering lots of the readers > may > not be faimiliar with how AI is created. I tried to explain it, as well as > the implication if some components are missing. > > (3) is there anything unclear or ambiguous in the text for backgrounds and > options? > > (4) is there anything else that should be added to the text? > > (5) what is the actionable outcome of this generaal resolution? > > (6) is a neutral tone necessary for a proposal? I have a clear > tendency throughout the texts. > > (7) I have not yet asked ftp-master on their opinion. > > > According to https://www.debian.org/vote/howto_proposal , > there is a template https://www.debian.org/vote/sample_vote.template > but I don't understand this XML dialect. How to use this XML file? > > -- Jacinto A. Dávila Quintero http://webdelprofesor.ula.ve/ingenieria/jacinto
Re: [draft] need your help on the AI-DFSG general resolution prepration
hi, about https://salsa.debian.org/lumin/gr-ai-dfsg/-/blob/main/README.txt On Sun, Feb 02, 2025 at 12:56:59AM -0500, M. Zhou wrote: > (2) are the options clear enough for vote? Considering lots of the readers may > not be faimiliar with how AI is created. I tried to explain it, as well as > the implication if some components are missing. this explaination text is surely useful/well ment but also makes it somewhat hard to see where the GR text starts. > (3) is there anything unclear or ambiguous in the text for backgrounds and > options? > (4) is there anything else that should be added to the text? > (5) what is the actionable outcome of this generaal resolution? > (6) is a neutral tone necessary for a proposal? I have a clear > tendency throughout the texts. as I understand your text and the GR process, you presented two (or three) GR options in one, which is a bit unusual, so maybe it will help to clearly to split this in (3 files) a.) GR background, explainations about AI b.) GR option 1 (called "Proposal A" in your text currently. c.) GR option 2 (called "Proposal B" in your text currently. Your Proposal C is not needed because "further discussion" is always an option in our GRs. Also you don't need to be neutral, though of course you can and maybe you should try. But my point is: anyone else can also propose GR options with a more or less neutral tone, so you can definitly be enthusiastic about your proposal! -- cheers, Holger ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ OpenPGP: B8BF54137B09D35CF026FE9D 091AB856069AAA1C ⠈⠳⣄ I have a joke about trickle down economics. 99% of you won’t ever get it. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [draft] need your help on the AI-DFSG general resolution prepration
On Sun, 2 Feb 2025 at 15:57, M. Zhou wrote: > (1) do you know any important but missing reference materials? Is it worth explicitly mentioning weights are also released under very restrictive non-free licenses? The list of Apache/MIT licenses might mislead a reader into believing all weights are licensed freely. For example, LG's EXAONE license is strictly non-commercial and says they own the model, and all derivative models, and even all output of the model (i.e. all text that users generate): https://ollama.com/library/exaone3.5 https://huggingface.co/LGAI-EXAONE/EXAONE-3.5-7.8B-Instruct/blob/main/LICENSE Also a small correction, just after heading "# Problem 1: "Preferred form of modification" there is a "udner" instead of "under". Jamie
