Re: Proposal -- Interpretation of DFSG on Artificial Intelligence (AI) Models -- "ToxicCandy Allowlist"
Osamu Aoki <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.linux.debian.devel.vote |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Hi, * Ansgar: you have very good points. * Zo: can you address these points? Although I like Zo's proposal in general, I also had similar concern for the "practical impact", too. It was answered by Zo to make me feel OK. My concern for Japanese keyboard input method was addressed in "ToxicCandy Allowlist" by assessing it as non-AI model in ML-policy. https://salsa.debian.org/deeplearning-team/ml-policy/-/blob/master/ML- Policy.rst The current policy proposal is vague at what is not "AI models" and it lacks direct reference to "ToxicCandy Allowlist". (Why missing? or did I overlook something?) If Ansgar's cases for models are deemed not as "AI models" with good reason, we can qualify them as "ToxicCandy Allowlist". Then, it is easier for us to vote yes. > > But the practical effects of passing the GR is probably (among other > > things): > > > > a) Removal of OCR software (like tesseract[1]) > > b) Removal of image recognition software (like opencv[2]) > > c) Possibly removal of text-to-speech software (like festival[3] or > > flite[4]) > Regards, Osamu > Ansgar > > [1]: https://sources.debian.org/src/tesseract-lang/1%3A4.1.0-2/ > [2]: https://sources.debian.org/src/opencv/4.10.0%2Bdfsg- > 5/data/haarcascades/haarcascade_fullbody.xml/ > [3]: https://sources.debian.org/src/festival-hi/0.1- > 11/hindi_NSK_diphone/festvox/hindi_NSK_ene.scm/#L3 > [4]: https://sources.debian.org/src/flite/2.2-7/lang/cmu_us_kal/ >