Re: Proposal -- Interpretation of DFSG on Artificial Intelligence (AI) Models

On Mon Apr 28, 2025 at 9:24 PM CEST, Aigars Mahinovs wrote:
> In fact, for adjusting a LLM for use in a particular domain or 
> a particular company it actually *is* the "binary" that is the 
> *preferred* form to be modified - you take a model that "knows" a lot 
> in general and "knows" how your language works and you train the model 
> further by doing specialisation training for your, specific data set. 
> And a result you get from one "generic" binary another - "specialized" 
> binary.

While this may be the case for extremely big LLMs, I wouldn't call the 
trained model the preferred form of modification. You just want to do 
fine tuning? Sure, go ahead, but you aren't modifying the model in the 
real sense, and cannot study how it was implemented.

Moreover, this proposal is about "AI", and not LLMs in particular. Yes, 
"AI" is too broad, but I'd say that deep learning models should be in. 
And, speaking of deep learning, I recently had to play a bit with 
a computer vision model for object recognition, and fine-tuning wasn't 
enough --- I had to re-train the model from scratch. If the model were 
not free, I couldn't have completed my project.

> That *could* be the technical difference in definitions between what 
> is "DFSG-free AI" and what is "Debian-main-grade-free AI".

What? Isn't main supposed to represent DFSG-free stuff?

Bye :)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iIoEABYKADIWIQS6VuNIvZRFHt7JcAdKkgiiRVB3pwUCaBOLxxQcYW5kcmVhQHBh
cHBhY29kYS5pdAAKCRBKkgiiRVB3p4PuAP9ERKCpnlf2SJ94dqng6ci+pHi08lBN
xVvKESf8fLukGgD9GlA2pO8Lj8s7Wvm3LLGPs3lPz1XC8bjcQPQ1GH2muAg=
=iWC8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----