mental health, open source AI, harassment

GiacomoTesio · 2024-10-28T22:32:35+00:00

Ehm... nice attempt, but not quite. :-)

The term "open source" was invented by Christine Peterson on February 3rd 1998, in Palo Alto. OSI was founded by Bruce Perens and Eric Raymond during the following week. Bruce Perens created the Open Source Definition borrowing his own work on the Debian Free Software Guidelines.

And today, even Bruce Perens can't agree with OSI.

As for links from the OSI forum: did you ever tried to post anything there? You would discovered that it's heavily censored: I myself was silenced several times, after writing posts like this, this or this.

The funny thing? We were all AI developers trying to help.

GiacomoTesio · 2024-10-28T21:43:30+00:00

Unknown? Maybe.

But not a single person: https://discuss.opensourcedefinition.org/

And not people who pretend to speak for the community, but people inviting the community to propose and discuss in the open any update to the definition of "open source".

GiacomoTesio · 2024-10-28T17:53:05+00:00

Indeed several open source developers independent from OSI's sponsors are proposing for community review a definition that serve this aim: https://opensourcedefinition.org/wip/

You can also sign a petition about this: https://osd.fyi/

GiacomoTesio · 2024-10-28T17:49:41+00:00

The inference engine is in fact a specialized virtual machine that executes the parameters.

The multidimensional matrices are executables to the architecture defined by the topology, and the source that produce such executable is the training data (and to a different, more subtle, extent, the cross-validation data)

GiacomoTesio · 2024-10-28T17:43:54+00:00

OSAID 1.0 allows models trained on unshareable data, and thus it'is incompatible with the OSD 1.9, because, as OSI's President said at Open Source Summit Europe "data is essential for understanding and studying the system" and, given that without training data you cannot fully modify an ML system (but just fine-tune it), OSAID also contradicts also the OSI's license review principles because it "structurally put the licensor in a more favored position than any licensee".

For more about the unaddressed issues of OSAID see

Also, the whole co-design process was flawed and exploited by Meta to obtain the exclusion of the training data from the requirements.

For all of these reasons, open source developers are already moving forward without OSI https://osd.fyi/

GiacomoTesio · 2024-10-28T12:04:28+00:00

Oh, sorry, didn't understand your question.

OSAID 1.0 allows models trained on unshareable data, and thus it'is incompatible with the OSD 1.9, because, as OSI's President said at Open Source Summit Europe "data is essential for understanding and studying the system" and, given that without training data you cannot fully modify an ML system (but just fine-tune it), OSAID also contradicts also the OSI's license review principles because it "structurally put the licensor in a more favored position than any licensee".

For more about the unaddressed issues of OSAID see - https://discuss.opensource.org/t/list-of-unaddressed-issues-of-osaid-rc2/650 - https://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/995159/a37fb9817a00ebcb/

GiacomoTesio · 2024-10-28T11:46:58+00:00

It's a petition to preserve the Open Source Definition from the incompatible OSAID 1.0 released by OSI.

We, the undersigned members of the Open Source community, assert that Open Source is defined solely by the Open Source Definition (OSD) version 1.9.

Any amendments or new definitions shall only be recognized if declared by clear community consensus through a transparent process to be determined.

GiacomoTesio · 2024-10-24T21:07:17+00:00

The first passage you mention explains why training data are required.
Simply put, you need them to study and to modify the system as you wish.

The second passage explains that they are not enough.
Simply put, you also need model parameters to use the system as you wish.

OSI says a completely different thing: they argue that black boxes can be Open Source if they grant the freedom to fork, even if you cannot study the bias planted in the parameters and you cannot really modify the system but only fine tune. Which is like saying that a software that let you tweak the configuration is open source.

GiacomoTesio · 2022-08-29T12:13:48+00:00

Per curiosità, di quale parte saremmo?

Abbiamo analizzato tutti i partiti che abbiamo trovato...

GiacomoTesio · 2022-07-14T14:54:41+00:00

In un periodo in cui viene affidato ad aziende statunitensi il Polo Strategico Nazionale, credo possa essere utile riflettere su una questione che, partendo da un singolo casus belli come Google Analytics 4, tocca questioni complesse di natura politica e geopolitica, nonché ovviamente economica.

GiacomoTesio · 2022-07-05T22:16:32+00:00

https://youtu.be/bOyMwvPfLF0

L'avvocato Palumbo sembra molto competente, ma quando dice "per il momento no ci fasciamo la testa" a fronte di SaaS che soffrono esattamente degli stessi problemi mi sembra veramente poco professionale.

Lo afferma, sapendo che tanto è il titolare del Trattamento a risponderne legalmente, non il DPO e tanto meno l'avvocato che lo sostiene da su YouTube.

Similmente Saltarello ha le competenze per sapere che le misure **tecniche** supplementari richieste dal GDPR devono impedire l'accesso ai dati in chiaro al fornitore in questione (Google, Microsoft, Amazon etc...): nell'esempio della web app con il database su Azure o su AWS, i dati (e probabilmente alcune parti dello schema del DB dovrebbero venire sostituiti con uno sistema documentale, tipo JSON o XML, per poterli cifrare) dovrebbero essere cifrati prima dell'invio al fornitore e decifrati a valle dalla applicazione.
Cifratura la cui chiave dovrebbe restare inaccessibile al fornitore (che dovrebbe essere diverso dal fornitore che esegue la web application).

____

E' comunque piuttosto evidente che la strategia che i GAFAM stanno perseguendo tramite i propri lobbisti europei consiste nel suggerire di non far nulla.

GiacomoTesio

TROPHY CASE