Hi Thierry,

On "Open Source AI":
The nextcloud project (under leadership of Frank Karlitschek) has come up with the term "ethical AI". They rate AI solutions based on three criteria:
(1) The code that runs is fully open source
(2) The model data is available under an open source license
(3) The training data used to generate/train the model is available under an open source license

While I would have called this "open AI" or "sovereign AI" or "the 3 opens of AI" ;-) and not "ethical AI", it's probably still a useful starting point for evaluating the openness.
(WIth "ethical", I would expect that models are checked for discriminating biases ... and possibly checks added that avoid abusive output or other output that are seriously destructive to humans' physical or psychological safety.)

HTH,

--
Kurt Garloff <kurt@garloff.de>
Cologne, Germany

On 22/09/2023 15:06, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Thanks for looping me in, Julia.
>
> It's definitely on our radar. It is a fast-changing legal landscape, and while the ASF can be praised for issuing early guidelines, most of their guidance is pretty open-ended right now, and is meant more as a living document that is going to evolve.
>
> I actually participate in the Open Source Initiative new webinar series on defining open source AI, and will be exploring the effects of the introduction of AI on openly-developed open source together with Davanum Srinivas (AWS, long time contributor to Apache projects, OpenStack and Kubernetes) and Diane Mueller (now at Bitergia). The effects of generative AI on code contributions will be a key part of the discussion. It will happen on Wednesday at 16:00 UTC / 11am CT:
>
> https://deepdiveai.sessionize.com/session/526792
>
> Thierry
>
> Julia Kreger wrote:
>> Greetings Eoghan!
>>
>> I wholeheartedly agree, this is worthwhile to get on everyone's radar.
>>
>> As far as I'm aware, this topic has not come up before in the OpenInfra community, but we are a wide and diverse community. I do concur that this would fall into the scope of the board, in large part because we maintain authority over licenses and the acceptable copyrights. And as you've pointed out, this can quickly result in needing to dive into the license agreements and assignments which members commit to.
>>
>> Realistically, I think if we opted to permit AI generated code content, the content would still need to be denoted in the code itself under current USPTO guidelines, because the code in a single commit would then have two different sets of rules applying to it. One for the AI generated portion, and separately a human's influence over it. That being said, that is only my mildly caffeinated impression after doing some additional reading.
>>
>> I think a working group session may be a good starting place to collect thoughts from the board members. Meanwhile, I've added Thierry to the discussion because this might be something already on the staff's radar.
>>
>> -Julia
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 5:16 AM Eoghan Glynn <eglynn@redhat.com <mailto:eglynn@redhat.com>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>     Thanks Julia,
>>
>>     Not necessarily a reason on its own to justify an October meeting,
>>     but one that we might consider getting on our radar before the end
>>     of the year if it's not already being discussed in other Open Infra
>>     forums ...
>>
>>     After reading a recent ASF blog
>> <https://news.apache.org/foundation/entry/asf-legal-committee-issues-generative-ai-guidance-to-contributors> announcement, I asked the Red Hat team yesterday if anyone knew if there's an Open Infra equivalent for the Apache guidance <https://www.apache.org/legal/generative-tooling.html> on using generative AI for code contributions.
>>
>>     I also asked if this topic would naturally fall into the domain of
>>     the [OpenStack] TC to discuss and craft a policy.
>>
>>     The response I got was it felt more like a topic for discussion at
>>     the Foundation Board level, since it likely touches on the CLA and
>>     may require legal insight.
>>
>>     So a future Board discussion could be warranted on what type
>>     generated content we're comfortable with (if any) and whether it
>>     would make sense to encourage or even require disclosure of any such
>>     tool usage in the commit message.
>>
>>     Cheers,
>>     Eoghan
>>
>>     On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 3:58 PM Julia Kreger
>>     <juliaashleykreger@gmail.com <mailto:juliaashleykreger@gmail.com>>
>>     wrote:
>>
>>         Greetings Directors,
>>
>>         This morning Allison Randall and I met with the foundation
>>         executive staff to identify core topics from the staff to turn
>>         into an agenda for our upcoming meeting. Unfortunately, we
>>         determined that we would not have any items ready for the board
>>         for this upcoming meeting. The plus is that we can cancel the
>>         October 3rd meeting if we have no other business to attend to.
>>         The down side is our November meeting is likely going to have a
>>         number of topics to cover.
>>
>>         As such, if anyone has any topics which need to be discussed and
>>         addressed during the scheduled meeting on October 3rd, please
>>         let me know before 9 AM Friday morning US-Pacific (4 PM UTC). If
>>         I receive no topics by that time, I will cancel the October
>>         meeting of the board, and we will meet next during our scheduled
>>         November meeting.
>>
>>         Thanks,
>>
>>         -Julia
>>         _______________________________________________
>>         Foundation-board mailing list
>>         Foundation-board@lists.openinfra.dev
>>         <mailto:Foundation-board@lists.openinfra.dev>
> _______________________________________________
> Foundation-board mailing list -- foundation-board@lists.openinfra.dev
> To unsubscribe send an email to foundation-board-leave@lists.openinfra.dev
_______________________________________________
Foundation-board mailing list -- foundation-board@lists.openinfra.dev
To unsubscribe send an email to foundation-board-leave@lists.openinfra.dev