Meta and other tech firms that open-source so-called generative artificial intelligence (AI) models are “depriving the public of innovation cycles” and profiting from it, according to the group that coined the term open source in software for the past 25 years.

Open Source is yet another buzzword in AI circles with Big Tech companies like Meta’s Grok AI model and Elon Musk declaring that open source is “good for the world.” according to Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg.

But no one can agree on what open source AI means.

That could change over time Open Source Initiative (OSI), the organization that is the self-appointed administrator of the term, establishes a final definition for open source AI Mondayand is not the same as Meta’s version of the term.

“I fail, especially Meta, because their terms of use and terms of distribution are incompatible with the definition of open source and the principles of open source,” Stefano Maffulli, who heads OSI, told Euronews Next.

“They’re basically the Microsoft, Oracle, Adobe of this space saying, ‘Build on my platform, don’t worry about it, and I’ll continue to get grants from you using our platforms. But they also say “it’s open, so everyone can use it,” he added.

What is OSI’s definition of AI?

The definition of OSI took several years, and the organization consulted a 70-person group of researchers, lawyers, policy makers and activists, as well as representatives of major technology companies such as Microsoft, Meta and Google.

It states that an open-source AI can be used for any reason without getting the company’s permission, and researchers should be able to freely see how the system works.

The AI ​​system is also said to be modifiable for any purpose, including changing its output and sharing it for others to use with or without modification for any reason.

Related

The Meta Llama 3.1 model is partially open source, as defined by the OSI, meaning that developers and researchers can freely download and customize it.

But Meta doesn’t specify where it got the data to train Llama 3.1, which can be problematic for users as it could lead to copyright issues or biased data.

Maffulli said that if tech companies say where the data comes from, they are often vague and will say the Internet. But he said the “real innovation” and how the AI ​​models work better is in how the data sets are fed through the training machine.

“If you talk to companies, they don’t want to release that code,” Maffulli said, adding that “that’s where innovation happens.”

Related

What are the consequences?

By confusing which AI models are truly open source, Meta and other firms can prevent the long-term development of AI models that are controlled by the user rather than by multiple technology companies, Maffulli said.

“I fear that society as a whole would be in a worse place if we let a handful of companies continue and be the only ones who have the advantage and access to innovation in this way,” he added.

Euronews Next contacted Meta for a reaction, but had not received a response at the time of publication.

However, Zuckerberg said in a blog post “we are taking the next steps to make open source AI the industry standard” and said Llama “has been the cornerstone of AI innovation globally.”

Maffulli said other companies like Microsoft and Google have pulled back from using the term open source for their designs that weren’t fully open, by definition. But he said talks with Meta have yielded no results.

Related

What’s in it for the Meta?

The open source label can have positive connotations for a technology company’s image because it is free to use.

But confusion around the term can lead to “open washing”, experts previously told Euronews Nextmeaning it promotes open models without contributing to the commons that can affect innovation and public understanding of AI.

Using the term open source can also affect a company’s bottom line, as other companies may use open source technology that then integrates new innovations into its products.

In an earnings call in February, Zuckerberg said, “Open source software often becomes an industry standard, and when companies standardize building with our stack, then it becomes easier to integrate new innovations into our products.”

Related

The future of open source

Unlike the 2000s, when social media and Big Tech companies took off and were largely unregulated, Maffulli believes it will be a different story with AI because now “regulators are already watching and regulating.”

While OSI is the steward of the open source definition of AI, it has no strong power to enforce the definition. However, judges and courts around the world are beginning to recognize that the definition of open source is important, especially when it comes to mergers, but also regulation.

“We expect the definition to have an impact on regulators,” Maffulli said.

“They’re following us. We became credible interlocutors”.