The article makes a good point: we should prevent “open-washing” and draw a distinction between well-intentioned restrictive licenses like “Open”RAIL and true open source. However, I worry the name “ethical source” is itself a bit question-begging. While outfits like Bloom may believe in good-faith ethical principles, their definition of ethics isn’t necessarily everyone’s. If restricted models are “ethical”, is releasing open weights “unethical”? Conversely, is releasing a model with PII or artist styles in it “ethical” if a few known use cases are forbidden? There’s no one right answer. Labeling any one set of restrictions as “ethical” off the bat makes discussion harder and puts open source on the back foot to justify “not being ethical”. Better to just call them “restricted models” or “guarded models”, and leave it to individuals to decide if these restrictions are beneficial or not.
A4ET8a8uTh0|2 years ago
All in all, I don't disagree with the point you raised, but I worry that all this will only further muddy the water for the general population.
pmoriarty|2 years ago
Even if they are well versed in issues of technology that does not mean they'll make what any given one of would consider a good decision, as plenty of people well versed in issues of technology disagree with each other on these issues.
Nothing guarantees that on, on any issue, really, as you can always find people who disagree.. and if they happen to be judges, they get to decide unless another higher judge overrule them.. and that judge has the same problem as the first.