When this discussion came up I immeditely thought of text-to-speech
projects like piper, using AI generated voices derived from real persons
voice data. The voice is a very specific attribute of every human. Its
part of attributes that define that persons humanity. Same goes for the
face, the fingerprint, the eyes, the movements, the genome. All these
data are very specific and in summa defines a person (although there are
probably more factors, just these came to mind). It also is already used
to identify a person.
If training data involves the core of a humans personhood - as mentioned
above - it cannot be open-sourced or otherwise free. Consent does not
matter. It belongs to that person and nobody else, period. I deeply
believe that there are borders we are not allowed to cross, no matter
how noble the cause.
Do we still want to positively distinguish AI projects whose code,
parameters, weights and adjustments are free? Yes I do and IMHO OSI has
the same goal. That's why I think that OSAID is on the right track. They
could have worded things better and they could have more precisely
distinguished different types of training data but in light of time
contraints (EU AI Act) I think they did the best they could.
Will Debian accept a GR that requires all training data to be free,
including training data that belongs to the core of human dignity? That
would be disturbing. And in fact practically lobotomize good projects.
Am 25.01.25 um 17:37 schrieb M. Zhou:
On Sat, 2025-01-25 at 17:08 +0100, Sam Johnston wrote:
The best time to do this was last year around the OSAID 1.0 release.
The next best time is now. Do you need our help?
I lean towards making things simpler.
Yes I disagree with OSI's decision on OSAID, and the definition
does not guarantee freedom at all. But a bold move towards picking
a fight against OSI on this matter through Debian General Resolution
sounds terrible and reckless to me.
I'll focus on a simpler topic for the GR:
"how does Debian community interpret DFSG and software freedom
against the AI model and software?"
I'll draft from a pure technical point of view. Neutral to
individuals and organizations, without commenting on how others
think and do. In that case it is as simply as elaborating the
"toxic candy" case, and analyzing the OSAID's implication from
a technical point of view.
In that sense, things will be more constructive and doable.
FSF will also able to learn from Debian's GR discussion.
I'll put my limited energy on this matter towards such direction.
