this post was submitted on 10 Jan 2025
8 points (72.2% liked)

Open Source

31911 readers
427 users here now

All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!

Useful Links

Rules

Related Communities

Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

If there with AGPLv3 AI, I would definitely try, would there be a reason not to use it? I wish there was a GPLv3 AI to install. I would not use a GPL2 AI.

As a real would code example of the difference between GPL2 and 3, not license but code, look at Linux kernel vs Linux-libre. For the limited hardware that a Linux-libre distribution supports, it's a much smoother and cleaner system to run.

An AGPL3 AI can't hide any nefarious or bias programming, so I see it truely working as a servant, while retaining zero information of users for data collecting. Look at open hardware like RISC V and how far that has come once companies saw they were free to engineer their own version of a RISC V CPU. It's made RISC V to be at the very beginning point to get closer to ARM, when it was once worthless. Having a AGPLv3 AI for anyone to design their own version with everybody pushlishing their server source code for AI, would there be a downside to using it?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] technohacker@programming.dev 7 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago)

I would actually bring a parallel to the device driver-firmware blob split that's common with hardware support in Linux. While the code needed to run inference with a model is straightforward and several open source versions exist already, the model itself is a bunch of tensors whose behaviour we don't have any visibility into. Bias is less a problem of the inference code and more an issue with the data it was trained on