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

Bill Allombert dijo [Sun, May 04, 2025 at 04:01:37PM +0000]:
>Le Sat, Apr 19, 2025 at 01:56:17PM -0400, M. Zhou a écrit :
>> ===============================================================================
>> Proposal A: "AI models released under open source license without original
>>             training data or program" are not seen as DFSG-compliant.
>> ===============================================================================
>>
>> The "AI models released under open source license without original training
>> data or program", a particular type of files as explained above, are not seen
>> as DFSG-compliant. Hence, they can not be included in the "main" section of the
>> Debian archive. This proposal does not specify whether the "non-free" section
>> of Debian archive can include those files.
>
>Could we avoid using the term 'Artificial intelligence' in the text of
>the proposal (not in the appendix)? This term dates for 1970 and has had
>different meaning for eachdecades since then. In ten years it is likely
>that, while the question this GR addresses will still be relevant, the
>term 'Artificial intelligence' will refer to something quite different.

Nitpicking... the term was coined around 1955. By 1966¹, when reports from
various government agencies admit that automated translation is further
away than originally envisioned ("just a few years", estimated in 1954,
after the Georgetown-IBM experiment²³), funds were cut and it is
acknowledged the "first IA winter" began.

¹ https://web.archive.org/web/20110409070141/http://www.mt-archive.info/ALPAC-1966.pdf
² https://open.unive.it/hitrade/books/HutchinsFirst.pdf
³ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgetown%E2%80%93IBM_experiment

>Wikipedia includes this citation:
>"" However, many AI applications are not perceived as AI: "A lot of cutting
>edge AI has filtered into general applications, often without being
>called AI because once something becomes useful enough and common enough
>it's not labeled AI anymore."[2][3] ""
><https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Artificial_intelligence&oldid=1286364868>

I agree with you. However, it is a term firmly set in the mind of too many
people. Keep in mind Mo Zhou's proposal is in a large way an answer to
OSI's OSAID⁴, which many among us feel to be a gross mistake.

⁴ https://opensource.org/blog/the-open-source-initiative-announces-the-release-of-the-industrys-first-open-source-ai-definition

Too many people (both "in the trade" and not) recognize the term AI. I have
several times called for "resignifying" it as "Apparent Intelligence",
because its outputs are good enough to fool some people into thinking there
is intelligence where there is none. But, given the scope where this
statement (if the GR passes) will apply, I think we should stick with the
stupid AI moniker.

    – Gunnar.

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

wr0EABYKAG8FgmgXns8JEOL2O0NT9FmJRxQAAAAAAB4AIHNhbHRAbm90YXRpb25z
LnNlcXVvaWEtcGdwLm9yZwCUjS/1E/S4xKaQryzHqwh4ztBZizUGWzQwpi7YjHTp
FiEEYLMJPZYQjly5cULv4vY7Q1P0WYkAAIv4AQCVuRvRfqA9SjDaPCOmAa9RGsN3
K9qmcfum6MXercobPAD+J9N+hEooLWYa4llBJ3mSgBC5NeSAopozCGdLwSiEpgo=
=21z6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----