---
title: "“Open Artificial Intelligence” misses the point"
date: 2023-07-31T22:12:48-07:00
replyURI: "https://blog.opensource.org/towards-a-definition-of-open-artificial-intelligence-first-meeting-recap/"
replyTitle: "Towards a definition of “Open Artificial Intelligence”: First meeting recap"
replyType: "BlogPosting"
replyAuthor: "Stefano Maffulli"
replyAuthorURI: "https://www.maffulli.net/"
syndicatedCopies:
    - title: 'The Fediverse'
      url: 'https://pleroma.envs.net/notice/AYHDFEHrdjIPEyrbJw'
    - title: 'jstpst'
      url: 'https://www.jstpst.net/f/just_post/8512/open-artificial-intelligence-misses-the-point'
---
The Open-Source Initiative (<abbr>OSI</abbr>) is planning to form a definition of "Open Artificial Intelligence" (not to be confused with OpenAI, a company selling proprietary autocomplete software whose technical details only grow less open with each iteration). Unfortunately, odds of the definition requiring the release of training data are slim: [the OSI's executive director isn't keen on the idea](https://social.opensource.org/@ed/110749197935118988) himself.

I see libre/open-source software as a means to reduce dependence on a vendor, and mitigate the risk of [user domestication]({{<relref "/posts/whatsapp-and-the-domestication-of-users.md">}}). As long as training data is out of the community's reach, it's impossible for the vendor to be replaced. Yes, it's possible to customize or re-train the model, but the vendor remains in control of its future development.

Recent decades have tested the effectiveness of liberating source code as a defense against user domestication, [as I explain in another blog post]({{<relref "/posts/keeping-platforms-open.md">}}). But to re-define Open Source to allow labelling a model that is impossible to competitively fork would be to miss the whole value of FOSS in my eyes: to allow users to own not just their tools, but those tools' futures.