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
Open Source Orgs Pledge Fealty to United Nations

Linux Foundation, GNOME Foundation, others pledge to "support the needs of the United Nations", promote DEl discrimination & RISE.

The article:
https://lunduke.substack.com/p/open-source-orgs-pledge-fealty-to

00:30:10
Counter-Strike 2 Switched to Wayland (for One Day)

After a number of significant issues when running under Wayland, Valve's CS2 is now back to X11 as default. Wayland advocates blame everything but Wayland.

00:13:19
Debian Has Gone Full Woke

Discriminating against White Males, covering for registered sex offenders, virtue signaling by leaving X/Twitter, and now removing "offensive" packages and supporting anti-White racism.

00:22:09
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
post photo preview
post photo preview

In Mobley vs Workday, judge says a class action lawsuit can be filed. At issue is if Workday's pre-screening and pre-ranking of job applications based on their AI criteria is screening out candidates of 40+ years old. Workday's own website says its AI-based screening can help teams meet diversity targets, which might suggest AI's ranking is applying unconstitutional ranking criteria.

See https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cand-3_23-cv-00770/pdf/USCOURTS-cand-3_23-cv-00770-1.pdf

post photo preview
Open Source Orgs Pledge Fealty to United Nations
Linux Foundation, GNOME Foundation, others pledge to ”support the needs of the United Nations”, promote DEI discrimination & RISE.

“Who controls Open Source?” is a fascinating topic.

Some of the largest “Open Source” foundations are primarily funded by corporations which, by most estimations, have not historically been fans of “Open Source” or “Free Software”.

Case in point, The Linux Foundation — which brings in roughly a Third of a Billion dollars per year — is heavily funded by corporate sponsors such as Microsoft, Hitachi, Meta, & Tencent. All of which derive most of their revenue from proprietary systems. Likewise Mozilla (bringing in over $600 Million annually) is almost entirely funded by Google.

As the saying goes, “He who controls the purse strings, controls how the money is spent.”

And, of course, we must consider the political control (and influence) over Open Source. Many large Open Source Foundations and Organizations have deep, often financial, ties to political activism organizations — both Mozilla and Wikimedia being some of the more well known examples.

Well.

Buckle up, Buttercup. Because all of this is about to get a whole lot worse.

Enter the United Nations

Back in March, the United Nations announced that 16 organizations had signed on to the “United Nations Open Source Principles”.

The “UN Open Source Principles” is a set of 8 core principles which Open Source organizations are vowing to adhere to. 5 of those 8 principles being fairly obvious and, considering the topic, not at all surprising.

Expected things like “Make Open Source the standard approach” and “Encourage active participation in Open Source”. Oh, and “Make security a priority”.

Ok. Sure. Fine.

I can understand why an Open Source organization might choose to pledge to follow such ideals. In theory, they were possibly doing those things anyway.

But three of the “UN Open Source Principles” raise significant red flags.

 

The Red Flag UN Open Source Principles

Let’s go over those three, red flag raising items. Which every signatory has agreed to.

“4. Foster inclusive participation and community building: Enabling and facilitating diverse and inclusive contributions.”

Inclusive. Diverse.

Over the last several years these have become code words for “discriminate against people we don’t like”. We’ve seen this time and time again — with companies like Red Hat and IBM building entire corporate policies around what skin color they want in their employees.

All hidden behind words like “Inclusive” and “Diverse”.

And the United Nations wants Open Source organizations to commit to that form of systemic discrimination.

Already, this is not great. But it gets far, far worse.

“7. RISE (recognize, incentivize, support and empower): Empowering individuals and communities to actively participate.”

If you don’t know what RISE is, that sentence reads like a bunch of corporate buzz word mumbo jumbo. But it has a very real, very sinister meaning.

What is “RISE”, you ask? It is a codified framework for encouraging exactly the type of discrimination we just talked about — it has become an increasingly widely used tactic among DEI advocates.

RISE is an acronym:

  • Recognize the contributions of “underrepresented or marginalized” groups. Highlight the achievements of “diverse” employees over “non diverse” employees”.

  • Incentivize “underrepresented” groups (with internships, promotions, scholarships, bonuses, etc.) to encourage “diversity”. (read: discrimination)

  • Support “underrepresented or marginalized” groups with tailored resources to ensure “equitable” outcomes. (read: no meritocracy)

  • Empower “diverse” individuals with leadership roles in order to promote DEI.

Sometimes discussion around “RISE” specifically includes language regarding “DEI” and “Diversity”. Other times that exact language is left out — but the core goals and motives remain consistently DEI focused.

It is, in essence, a corporate-speak, checklist for encouraging discrimination.

Which brings us to the last “UN Open Source Principle”. The one which, quite possibly, raises the largest red flag of all…

“8. Sustain and scale: Supporting the development of solutions that meet the evolving needs of the UN system and beyond.”

Did you catch that?

Open Source organizations, which sign on to this compact, are pledging to “support the development of solutions that meet the needs of the United Nations”.

Or, put another way, those organizations are pledging to do the bidding of the UN. Whatever that might be.

The UN is asking these Open Source organizations to pledge fealty to them.

The Open Source Orgs Pledging Fealty

Which Open Source organizations are we talking about? Quite a few of the big names — names which will be very familiar to Lunduke Journal readers — including:

  • The Linux Foundation

  • The GNOME Foundation

  • Eclipse Foundation

  • The Document Foundation (LibreOffice)

And so many others. Heck, even Nextcloud and Matrix have signed on.

 

Many of these organizations (and others) recently met, in person, at the United Nations in New York to discuss — among other things — this formal agreement. This… compact.

The UN Global Digital Compact

In June of this year, the United Nations hosted “UN Open Source Week” — and invited a who’s who of organizations which control Open Source in one form or another (along with a number of smaller organizations which are politically aligned with the UN).

This gathering was officially named “an Open Community for the Global Digital Compact”.

 

Who did the United Nations make a point of inviting to speak to those in attendance?

Let’s go down the list.

 

The Gates Foundation and Mozilla.

Of course.

 

Amazon and, I kid you not, The World Bank.

 

GitLab and Wikimedia Foundation.

 

I found the inclusion of Mastodon a fascinating one. While Mastodon is small (in most ways — even considering the size of their social media network), they align strongly to the political goals and views of the United Nations (promote Leftist Extremism, censor political opponents).

 

And, of course, GitHub. Aka… Microsoft.

In addition, representatives from most of the signatories of the “United Nations Open Source Principles” agreement were in attendance (including the GNOME Foundation).

Some of the presentations were about things like “Ethical” software, interoperability with United Nations systems, “Public infrastructure”, digital “cooperation” of governments, and (of course) “inclusion”.

Many presentations — by many organizations — which already raise significant concerns.

But, and this is important, what did they talk about behind closed doors? What was discussed out of the public eye at the (many) meetings and events where attendees were wined and dined?

That remains unknown.

The Lunduke Journal has asked. The UN isn’t talking. Neither are the attendees.

The Three Masters of Open Source

But we now know, with a high level of certainty, that many of the significant Open Source organizations and Foundations now serve three masters:

  1. The Corporations

  2. The Political Activists

  3. The United Nations

I don’t know about you, but I sure wouldn’t want to have those three masters.

As always, The Lunduke Journal encourages representatives and leadership from any organization involved with this story to reach out — for any reason. Corrections, clarifications, or additional information. Considering the professed commitment to “openness” of every organization mentioned in this story, there should be no reason to continue refusing to speak to journalists regarding it.

Likewise, if you would like to become a whistleblower, there are multiple ways to get ahold of The Lunduke Journal.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

And this story needs a heck of a lot of sunlight.

Read full Article
post photo preview
IBM Taking DEI “Under the Radar”
Whistleblowers provide details on how IBM & Red Hat are simply renaming “Diversity” programs, as the company continues discriminatory hiring practices.

Back in April, The Lunduke Journal broke the story of IBM “ditching DEI policies” company wide — including at their subsidiary, Red Hat. This change was announced in the wake of multiple lawsuits against IBM (for their DEI policies) and executive orders against DEI from President Trump.

At the time, activist employees at Red Hat / IBM were not happy (to say the least). Encouraging and planning protests, “raising hell”, and even “killing fascists”.

But, now that a little time has passed, let’s take a look inside at IBM and see how their “ditching DEI” change is actually going.

DEI Staying “Under the Radar”

Thanks to whistleblowers within IBM, we know that employee groups focused on DEI still, in fact, exist. They are simply changing names in order to “stay under the radar” and avoid having “a target on their back”.

 

The “diversity-inclusion” corporate Slack channel, for example, is now named “inclusion-at-ibm”. They simply dropped the word “diversity”.

The DEI Department is Still There

Employees are using that IBM DEI Slack channel to clarify corporate changes to DEI policy. Which, again, thanks to whistleblowers… we have screenshots of.

A few key items:

  • The “DEI Department” has been renamed to “Inclusion” — and now reports to Kitty Chaney Reed (the Chief Leadership, Culture and Inclusion Officer).

  • IBM is no longer part of the Human Rights Campaign — “the HRC no longer align with IBM priorities”.

  • “People can still identify their preferred pronouns in all of IBM systems.”

  • The game-ified “Allyship Badge” system has been removed.

 

As we can see, some DEI policies and programs are gone, while others remain. And IBM is making a point of renaming their DEI Department within HR.

We gain these insights thanks to Ruth Davis — an IBM Executive and who currently identifies as a “DEI Advocate”.

 

These clarifications were published by a current member of the IBM HR team… who was originally hired as a “Diversity and Inclusion Intern”.

 

In short: DEI advocates continue to control IBM HR, and DEI departments continue to exist.

IBM / Red Hat Discriminatory Quotas

Up until recently, both IBM & Red Hat had discriminatory hiring policies — including sex and skin color quotas and even rewards for executives for hiring fewer white men.

We learned, as part of the original leaks supplied to The Lunduke Journal back in April, that “diversity goals are no longer part of the executive incentive program”.

 

Which begs the question, now that a few months have passed, is IBM still discriminating against White Men?

Getting hard numbers on the demographics of new IBM / Red Hat employees is not likely to happen for quite some time — if ever. But here is a picture, posted yesterday, of new Red Hat interns.

That might give us some indication of where things are heading.

 

Well. Huh.

Finding the “White Guys” in this photo of Red Hat interns isn’t quite as challenging as a round of “Where’s Waldo?”… but it’s close.

Now for me, personally, I truly don’t care what the demographic ratios are of employees & interns within a company. Hire the best people for the job, regardless of their sex or ethnicity. Meritocracy is a good thing.

That said, considering the multiple pending lawsuits against IBM and Red Hat — specifically regarding their discriminatory policies towards White Men (and their previously stated goals of hiring less of them) — it is more than a little interesting that their latest crop of Red Hat interns is almost entirely… people who are not White Men.

Results Are Mixed

There are a few good signs in here of IBM dropping DEI related policies — including no longer being involved in the Human Right Campaign and the removal of the (rather repulsive, anti-White) “Allyship Badges”.

Unfortunately, most of the rest of what we’re seeing is less encouraging.

  • “DEI” groups simply being renamed to “Inclusion” in order to stay on the right side of the law.

  • What appears to be continued discriminatory hiring at Red Hat (despite lawsuits and stated policy changes).

  • Executives and HR still heavily controlled by “DEI Advocates”.

  • Corporate systems still using “preferred pronouns”.

While making significant changes to corporate policies can take time — especially across large organizations like IBM — some of these internal reports indicate an unwillingness to drop DEI policies on the part of key IBM leadership.

The Lunduke Journal will continue keeping tabs on both IBM and Red Hat.

Any employees looking to become whistleblowers can find whistleblower resources at Lunduke.com.

Read full Article
post photo preview
LibreOffice Developer’s Hotmail Account Locked After LibreOffice Criticizes Microsoft
“Wow that looks bad,” says Microsoft employee.

Mike Kaginski, a LibreOffice developer (who works for Collabora), has had his Microsoft-hosted email account, which he uses for open source development, locked for “activity that violates our Microsoft Services Agreement”.

 

Kaginski discovered this when attempting to send an email to the LibreOffice development mailing list (hosted by FreeDesktop). It remains unclear if that specific email (which he sent via another address and was rather bland and technical) was the reason for the ban… or if attempting to send the email was simply the first time the ban was noticed by him.

This happened just days after LibreOffice officially accused Microsoft of engaging in a “Lock-in” strategy by creating “artificially complex”, XML-based office documents.

Are the two events related? Hard to say with any certainty.

To make matters worse, Kaginski has had no success in getting Microsoft to lift his locked email account — with the company making him jump through numerous, impossible hoops (such as requiring him to sign in to submit an appeal for his account being locked… but not allowing him to sign in… because his account is locked).

You got that? Sign in to fix the account you can’t sign in with.

Gotta love a good Catch-22.

Good job, Microsoft.

The Lunduke Journal reached out to a contact, within Microsoft, who made it clear that their group was not aware of the LibreOffice Developer’s locked account, but they were aware of the LibreOffice complaint article regarding “artificially complex” XML lock-in. Adding, “wow that looks bad”.

The Lunduke Journal’s Analysis

The odds of locking a LibreOffice developer’s email account being an official Microsoft corporate decision seems highly unlikely.

Microsoft, as a company, makes a lot of bad decisions — but this would just be too stupid for words. A massive PR blunder.

But could a single employee, feeling grumpy, have done it on an impulse? As some sort of revenge for LibreOffice’s “harsh” words about Microsoft? Sure. That seems entirely plausible?

Though, it’s also entirely plausible that some poorly designed AI-driven “naughty activity” detection bot flagged his account. Or, perhaps, the developer was reported by some random Open Source hooligan who likes to cause chaos (there’s a lot of those).

Either way, the fact that Microsoft requires people to log in — on accounts which cannot log in — in order to file an “appeal” is incredibly amusing. And is very, very typical Microsoft.

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