Opinions differ on the risks of open-source AI, but we can agree on the definition of open-source AI itself, right … right?
The AI industry is currently split on open source AI models. Some see them as the path to innovation, creativity, and community-driven progress. Others think of them as Pandora’s box, once opened, releasing risks like misuse or insufficient guardrails.
It is understandable there is a difference of opinion, but how do we know which model falls on which side?
“Open source” means transparency, sharing, and collaboration qualities upheld by the recently released Open Source Initiative (OSI) definition. Freedom to use, modify, and distribute software is empowering. Everyone agrees those principles are powerful. You can read more about the OSI definition here: Open Source AI Definition.
Wait a second, who is this OSI? The Open Source Initiative was founded in 1998 by Bruce Perens and Eric S. Raymond, two key figures in the early days of the open source movement. Their mission was to promote and protect open source software by providing a clear and standardized definition of what “open source” means.
Are there not already open source AI models available? Like Llama from Meta?
Meta’s model, while labeled as “open,” falls short of the OSI definition for open source AI because it only makes the model weights available, rather than all components required to fully use, modify, and understand the AI system. According to the OSI definition, all components, including data, code, and documentation, should be made available to be considered truly open source. Meta also includes restrictions on use, limiting deployment in scenarios they consider risky and restricting access based on user agreements and intended applications. These limitations mean Meta’s model does not fully align with the OSI’s principles of freedom to use, modify, and distribute without limitation. This perspective gives insight into the broader debate of whether the risks of unrestricted open source AI outweigh the benefits, and if more controlled forms of openness are a better balance for safety and innovation.
Meta has raised concerns about the lack of control over how open source AI models might be used. They argue that completely open models could lead to misuse, misinformation, and security issues, especially since generative AI has the potential to produce convincing but false or harmful content. Meta’s stance highlights the need for responsible governance to ensure AI technologies are used ethically and safely.
