Lunduke
News • Science & Tech
Open Source AI Definition: Not Open, Built by DEI, Funded by Big Tech
Run by an "Anti-Racist, Decolonizing" Activist, the new Open Source Definition is anything but Open
July 25, 2024
post photo preview

The Open Source Initiative is preparing to finalize what they call "The Open Source Aritificial Intelligence Definition" -- a set of rules which A.I. systems must adhere to in order to be considered, officially, "Open Source".

And everything about it is truly peculiar.

From the fact that it considers "No Data" to be "Open Data" (yeah, try to wrap your brain around that little nugget) to the corporate sponsorship (from corporations in the "Closed Source A.I." business)... to the "anti-racist, decolonizing" consultant they hired to put the whole thing together.

Yeah.  "Decolonizing".  The whole thing is just plain weird.

A Little Background

The Open Source Initiative's cliam to fame is that they are the steward of what is known as the "Open Source Definition" (aka "the OSD").  A set of rules which any software license must adhere to in order to be considred, officially, "Open Source".

The "OSD" began life back in 1997 as the "Debian Free Software Guidelines", written by Bruce Perens.  Later, with the help of Eric Raymond, that document morphed into the "Open Source Definition"... at which point the two men created the "Open Source Initiative" to act as a certification body for the OSD.

Fun Historical Tidbit: The Open Source Initiative likes to tell a long-debunked story about the creation of the term "Open Source" which they know is historically incorrect.  That little tidbit isn't critical to what we're talking about today... but it's just plain weird, right?

Flash forward to today, and both of the founders -- Perens and Raymond -- have been forced out or banned from the Open Source Initiative entirely.  Now the organization, free from the influence of the founders, is looking to expand into the newly exciting field of "Artificial Intelligence".

Thus: The creation of "The Open Source A.I. Definition"... or the OSAID.

The Anti-Racist Leadership

To create this new "OSAID", the Open Source Initiative hired Mer Joyce from the consulting agency known as "Do Big Good".

 

Mer Joyce: Process Facilitator for the Open Source AI Definition

 

Why, specifically, was Mer Joyce hired to lead the effort to create a brand new "Open Source" definition, specifically focused on Artificial Intelligence?

  • Was it her extensive background in Open Source?
  • Or her expertise in A.I. related topics?
  • Perhaps it was simply her many years of work in software, in general?

Nope.  It was none of those things.  Because, in fact, Mer Joyce appears to have approximately zero experience in any of those areas.

In fact, the stated reason that Mer Joyce was chosen to create this Open Source definition is, and I quote:

 

"[Mer Joyce] has worked for over a decade at the intersection of research, policy, innovation and social change."

 

Her work experience appears to be mostly focused on Leftist political activism and working on Democrat political campaigns.

As for the consulting agancy, Do Big Good, their focus appears to be equally... non-technical.  With a focus on "creating an equitable and sustainable world" and "inclusion".

 

The "Values" of "Do Big Good".

 

When "Do Big Good" talks about what skils and expertise they bring to a project, they mention things such as:

  • Center marginalized and excluded voices.
  • Embody anti-racist, feminist, and decolonizing values.
  • Practice Cultural humility.

 

How "Do Big Good" works.

 

Note: Yes.  They wrote "decolonalizing".  Which is not a real word.  We're going to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they meant "decolonizing".  Spelling errors happen.

Now, how does "Embodying decolonizing values" help to draft a definition of Open Source Artificial Intelligence licensing?

No clue.  But, apparently, "decolonizing" and being "anti-racist" is important to the Open Source Definition and software licensing.

You'll note that the only software-related skill this "Do Big Good" company appears to have is that they can "work virtually or in-person".  In other words: They know how to use Zoom.

In fact, this consulting firm only gives three examples of client projects they've worked on.  And the other two are non-technical policy documents for the government of Washington State.

 

The other work of "Do Big Good".

 

Why this agency, and this individual, was hired to lead the work on the OSAID is beyond baffling.  Just the same, this appears to be part of a larger pattern within Open Source and Big Tech: Hiring non-technical, political activist types to lead highly technical projects.  It doesn't usually go well.

The Diverse Working Groups

Considering that the leadership hired to oversee the OSAID's creation is extremely non-technical --  and almost 100% focused on "anti-racist" and "decolonizing" activism -- it's no surprise that one of the first steps taken was to create "working groups" based entirely on skin color and gender identity.

 

"The next step was the formation of four working groups to initially analyze four different AI systems and their components. To achieve better representation, special attention was given to diversity, equity and inclusion. Over 50% of the working group participants are people of color, 30% are black, 75% were born outside the US, and 25% are women, trans or nonbinary."

 

What does having "25% of the people being Trans or nonbinary" have to do with creating a rule-set for software licensing?

Your guess is as good as mine.

But, from the very start of the OSAID's drafting, the focus was not on "creating the best Open Source AI Definition possible"... it was on, and I quote, "diversity, equity and inclusion".

The best and brightest?  Not important.  Meritocracy?  Thrown out the window.

Implement highly racist "skin color quotas" in the name of "DEI"?  You bet!  Lots of that!

"No Data" = "Open Data"

With that in mind, perhaps it is no surprise that the OSAID is turning out... rather bizarre.

Case in point: The OSAID declares that the complete absence of the data used to train an A.I. system... does, in fact, qualify as "Open".  No data... is considered... open data.

If that sounds a bit weird to you, you're not alone.

Let's back up for a moment to give a higher level understanding of the components of an A.I. system:

  1. The Source Code
  2. The Training Data
  3. The Model Parameters

If you have access to all three of those items, you can re-create an A.I. system.

Now, we already have the OSD (the Open Source Definition) which covers the source code part.  Which means the whole purpose of having the OSAID (the Open Source AI Definition) is to cover the other two components: The Training Data and the Model Parameters.

Without an exact copy of the Training Data used in an A.I. system, it becomes impossible to re-create that A.I. system.  It's simply how the current generation of A.I. works.

However, the OSAID does not require that the Training Data be made available at all.  The definition simply requires that:

 

"Sufficiently detailed information about the data used to train the system, so that a skilled person can recreate a substantially equivalent system using the same or similar data."

 

At first that sounds pretty reasonable... until you really think about what it means.

This means that an A.I. system would be considered "Open Source A.I." even if it provided zero data used to train it -- it simply must be possible for someone to use the closed, proprietary data... if they should happen to obtain it.

That's like saying "My software is open source.  But I'm not going to let you have the source code.  But, if you did get the source code -- like through espionage or something -- you'd be able to use it.  Which means it's open source.  But you can't distribute or modify that source.  Because it's mine."

Now, an argument could be made that the source code for an AI system could be open even if the data is all closed... and, therefor, it would be "Open Source" under the old OSD.  Which is absolutely true.  But, in that case, why have an "OSAID" at all?  Why not simply keep the existing OSD and focus on that?

Well... I think we have a simple answer to why this OSAID is so utterly strange...

The Corporate Sponsors

The Open Source Initiative is not a huge foundation, especially when compared to some.  But it's revenue is not insignificant.  And it's growing.

In 2023, the Open Source Initiative brought in a revenue of $786,000 -- up roughly $200,000 from the year prior.

 

Source: Open Source Initaitive 2023 Annual Report

 

And who sponsors the Open Source Initiative?

Google.  Amazon.  Meta.  Microsoft (and GitHub).  Red Hat.  And many other corporations. 

 

A Sampling of the Open Source Initiative Sponsors.

 

 

Many of these companies have some noteworthy things in common:

  • They are in the A.I. business in some way.
  • They make use of "Open Source" in their A.I. products.
  • They use "Open Source" as a promotional and public relations tool.
  • They, in one way or another, work with a closed, proprietary set of A.I. training data.
  • They have significant "Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion" efforts.

When you add that all together, this "Open Source AI Definition" begins to make a lot more sense.

It is, in short:

An effort to create a "Certification" which will declare all of their A.I. systems (no matter how closed their data is) as "Open Source"... while simultaneously being run by a DEI activist organization with a focus on racial and gender identity quotas.

It checks a whole lot of check boxes.  All at once.

What Impact Will This Have?

While many may argue that this "OSAID" is simply irrelevant -- and can be ignored by the broader "Free and Open Source Software" industry -- that misses a key impact that is worth noting.

That being: The continued corruption of both the ideas and the organizations of Open Source.

Not only has the Open Source Initiative banned their founding members (and re-written their own history)... they are now seeking to create a new "Open Source Definition" which will allow for systems consisting primarily of closed, proprietary data to be considered "Open Source".  Thus making their Big Tech financiers happy.

The meaning of the term "Open Source" is being actively modified to mean "A little open, and a lot closed".  And many of the same corproations which are funding this effort are also funding things like... The Linux Foundation.

Which means this corruption and dilution of the concept of "Open Source" is likely to spread far beyond the reaches of one, small (but growing) licensing certification foundation.

Also, apparently, decolonizing values... or something.

community logo
Join the Lunduke Community
To read more articles like this, sign up and join my community today
7
What else you may like…
Videos
Podcasts
Posts
Articles
November 02, 2024
Apple Removes Ability to Run Unsigned Apps in macOS 15.1

Big Tech's war against "sideloading" continues. With Microsoft and Google not far behind.

The article:
https://lunduke.locals.com/post/6304352/apple-removes-ability-to-run-unsigned-apps-in-macos-15-1

00:23:36
October 31, 2024
Wayback Machine & Google Website Cache Go Offline Weeks Before 2024 Election

With a Presidential election days away, the biggest ways to record online statements are conspicuously broken.

00:13:05
October 31, 2024
25% of Google Code is AI Generated

Layoffs, lack of pay raises for engineers, but they're not replacing programmers with Al. Wink wink.

00:12:59
November 22, 2023
The futility of Ad-Blockers

Ads are filling the entirety of the Web -- websites, podcasts, YouTube videos, etc. -- at an increasing rate. Prices for those ad placements are plummeting. Consumers are desperate to use ad-blockers to make the web palatable. Google (and others) are desperate to break and block ad-blockers. All of which results in... more ads and lower pay for creators.

It's a fascinatingly annoying cycle. And there's only one viable way out of it.

Looking for the Podcast RSS feed or other links? Check here:
https://lunduke.locals.com/post/4619051/lunduke-journal-link-central-tm

Give the gift of The Lunduke Journal:
https://lunduke.locals.com/post/4898317/give-the-gift-of-the-lunduke-journal

The futility of Ad-Blockers
November 21, 2023
openSUSE says "No Lunduke allowed!"

Those in power with openSUSE make it clear they will not allow me anywhere near anything related to the openSUSE project. Ever. For any reason.

Well, that settles that, then! Guess I won't be contributing to openSUSE! 🤣

Looking for the Podcast RSS feed or other links?
https://lunduke.locals.com/post/4619051/lunduke-journal-link-central-tm

Give the gift of The Lunduke Journal:
https://lunduke.locals.com/post/4898317/give-the-gift-of-the-lunduke-journal

openSUSE says "No Lunduke allowed!"
September 13, 2023
"Andreas Kling creator of Serenity OS & Ladybird Web Browser" - Lunduke’s Big Tech Show - September 13th, 2023 - Ep 044

This episode is free for all to enjoy and share.

Be sure to subscribe here at Lunduke.Locals.com to get all shows & articles (including interviews with other amazing nerds).

"Andreas Kling creator of Serenity OS & Ladybird Web Browser" - Lunduke’s Big Tech Show - September 13th, 2023 - Ep 044

That time my Linux box was hacked and owned by the Chinese in 30 minutes...

I normally used linux on my home network. Never had any issues.

Then one day I put up a Linux instance on DigitalOcean. Within 30 minutes the Chinese had hacked it and DigitalOcean had shut it down.

The linux vm's in digitalocean just sit on the internet, unlike my home computers and VM's that are behind my router. I had NO IDEA about the basics that one needs to do to lock Linux down.

Spent the weekend educating myself and set up a new linux vpc on DigitalOcean that never got hacked. It didn't take brilliance, but it did take some basic education on security.

I tell this story to add some context to securing, debloating and turning off or blocking telemetry on Windows. It takes just a bit of time and education to learn what to do.

I find it weird that anybody who educates themselves on running Linux and extolls the virtues of how customizable it is, and the power of learning how to use VI --- would...

Time to buy a Mac Mini - but no. Not really.

My Beelink Windows 11 computer has died. It won't turn on and I don't know why. It doesn't even try to turn on. So, great time to get a Mac mini for the same $600 I have in the Beelink!

Not so, unfortunately. I need this box specifically to run Windows software - and it has 64gig of ram for running docker containers and virtual machines. It's actually over kill for how I'm using it.

I did buy the Asurion 3yr protection so I get to ship it back to be fixed. Risking my data...and my upgraded ram.

So, I ordered another one to be delivered over night. I'll swap the nvme's and ram, so that I'll have a running machine with my data....and I have until January to return this PC.

In that time, I'm hoping my original will be fixed. If I end up owning two of these computers, that's an acceptable outcome to be back up and running tomorrow or the next day.

4 hours ago

Zelle money transfer app, everyone.

No data is collected or stored after a complete system scan because... trust me, bro.

post photo preview
November 03, 2024
post photo preview
Last week at The Lunduke Journal (Oct 20 - Nov 2, 2024)
Linux v. Russia! Internet Archive Weirdness! RISC OS Web Browsing!

Ok, first off: I totally forgot to publish a "week in review" article last week.  Woops.  My bad.  So this article covers the last two weeks.

Second: Over the last 14 days, apparently there's been 16 shows.  Hot dang.

And the news has been all over the map!  The big story, obviously, was the "Linux v. Russia" craziness.  The really wild part of that story is that it's still ramping up.  The next month is going to see some wild stories relating to open source software and sanctions compliance.

Oh!  Oh!  And the Internet Archive stuff!  Insane!

But, you know what my absolute favorite news story was for the last two weeks?  The one about RISC OS having WiFi and a modern web browser now.  That story just made me happy.  It's nice to know that, even when various software companies and organizations are losing their darned minds... there's still bright spots of nerdy joy out there.

The Shows

The Articles

Read full Article
November 02, 2024
post photo preview
Funny Programming Pictures Part LXII
Number 7 will SHOCK you!

No Ctrl-C's were harmed in the making of this post.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Read full Article
November 02, 2024
post photo preview
Apple Removes Ability to Run Unsigned Apps in macOS 15.1
Big Tech's war against "sideloading" continues.

On Monday, October 28th, Apple released the macOS 15.1 update.  And, with that update, Apple has ratcheted up their war on "sideloading" by completely disabling the ability to run unsigned macOS software.

And signing software, of course, requires an Apple Developer Connection subscription.  Which, for most people, is a costly thing.

 

Every Few Months, A Little Less Freedom

 

Just a little over one month ago (September of 2024), the initial release of macOS 15.0 brought with it a new round of restrictions on running non-signed (also called "non-notarized") applications.  With 15.0, users could still run non-signed software... but they needed to jump through a few extra hoops by openning the System Settings and manually enabling each application they wanted to run.

 

 

This change made running unsigned software on macOS a bit more annoying -- additional steps to do something that used to be a simple "double click on the darned icon" process.  Annoying, to be sure.  But, luckily, all software could still be run.

That all changed -- less than 45 days later -- as Apple released the 15.1 update to macOS, which included the removal of the "Click around in System Settings" option to allow unsigned apps to run.

Now, in 15.1, when you attempt to run a non-notarized piece of Mac software, you will be greeted by a simple error message: "The application 'Finder' does not have permission to open '(null)'."

 

 

No option to run the software whatsoever.  Effectively banning all non-signed software (such as those developed by a hobbyist).

 

The War on Sideloading Continues

 

This isn't exactly a surprising move by Apple.  Over the last few years, all of the Big Tech operating system companies (Microsoft, Apple, and Google) have pushed -- with increasing intensity -- to lock down what software users are allowed to run on their computers.

Increasingly restrictive "application signing" systems, and the removal of "features" which allowed non-signed applications to run, have been a stated goal of all three corporations.

All in the name of a war on, what Big Tech has termed, "Sideloading".

What is "Sideloading", you ask?

"Sideloading" is most simply defined as "The act of installing software on a real computer."  And Apple, Google, & Microsoft are determined to stop people from doing that.

 

 

These companies haven't exactly been quiet about their goal to stop people from installing software on their computers (outside of approved, heavily restrictive mechanisms).  Back in 2021, Apple published a whitepaper entitled "Building a Trusted Ecosystem for Millions of Apps - A threat analysis of sideloading".

 

 

That's right.  Apple considers you having the freedom to install whatever software you want on the computer you own -- something every real computer (including those made by Apple) have done since the dawn of Personal Computing -- to be a "threat".

With macOS 15.1, Apple is taking significant steps to neutralize that "threat".

No software freedom for you.

 

The Last Workaround

 

As of now -- with macOS 15.1 -- there remains one final way to work around these draconian and artificial restrictions.

To do so requires the complete disabling of "Gatekeeper", the system which verifies downloads and restricts the running of non-signed applications.

This can be done via a fairly simple terminal command run as root:

 

sudo spctl --master-disable

 

However, it should be noted that with Apple's ever increasing requirements of application "notarization" -- and increasing reliance on the Mac App Store for software distribution (which ties into Gatekeeper) -- the full disabling of "Gatekeeper" seems likely to cause issues going forward with "Apple approved" methods of installing software.

Likewise, at Apple's current rate of attacks against "sideloading", the ability to turn off Gatekeeper may not be long for this world at all.

 

Don't Laugh, Google & Microsoft Users

 

While the news, today, is focused on Apple (their fight against the most basic freedoms of computing -- the ability to run software)... both Microsoft and Google have made it clear that they are all in on the war against sideloading.

Case in point: Google is migrating Android software away from "APK" application packages... to the far more restrictive "AAB" application bundles.  Microsoft, likewise, is pushing for a reliance on their online store.

So users of Android, ChromeOS, & Windows shouldn't laugh.  You're next.

Users of a variety of open source, alternative operating systems (such as Linux, BSDs, and many others), however, can laugh all they want.

Read full Article
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals