"Open" in the AI era is a commodity - we need to focus on what open was intended to enable

Unlike most of my writing, I won't set aside some time to acknowledge the hard work of people currently in the room of "Open Source AI", because that kind of graceful self-monitoring, stepping back - deferring to siloed leadership of open's future is precisely part of the problem.

This recent paper specifically, just felt like an uninspiring death knell for openness as a term:

"Openness takes multiple forms. Beyond the binary of “open” or “closed,” openness in AI systems manifests through varying degrees of access to data, code, weights, documentation, and governance. " - https://cacm.acm.org/research/unpacking-open-source-artificial-intelligence-toward-a-framework-for-openness-in-foundation-models/

It's similar to what the G7 writes:

The openness of an AI is not binary. It exists on a spectrum, ranging from models that share only weights under restricted licenses, to models that make all elements fully available under open licenses. G7 members and stakeholders are encouraged to recognize and communicate which degree of openness applies to a given AI, rather than using the term "open" without further qualification.

I do understand the intention here. I have done my own investigation, and learning to understand what openness looks like in the Age of AI, and it's incredibly hard, if not impossible, for regular people to influence the technology they use. Breaking it down into a stack - makes academic sense, but it's not going to help people in this moment of rapid escalation of corporate power.

Although the G7 also determined AI Openness must be community-driven, it's also never been clear which community, and how that community weighs in. It's all very academic and corporate (and siloed) in this moment, which is leaving regular people out. We already had an enormous gap in equality and equity in open source, this is magnifying it.

I believe "Open" as a term is becoming commodity with its own stockholders and that's a huge problem. It seems that to advance the democratization of technology in the AI era, this term is no longer helpful.

Call me a curmudgeon, if you will. I am OK with that.

What I have found helpful in the discussion is alignment through governance - measuring success based on how regular people want to, and have the ability to influence technology they use, build and contribute-to. Governance standards (yes, governance is mentioned in the earlier article as a positive) and tools to enable alignment are what we should be building.

Perhaps Governance in service of alignment will merge with the new "open" to advance democracy overall - but that seems a ways down the line. I will be at FOSSY with some peers to talk about this later this week.