Hi, >> My understanding is that is not proprietary, and the only reason it doesn't qualify for Open Source Initiative approval is because of these use restrictions: > > To generate or disseminate information or content, in any context (e.g. posts, articles, tweets, chatbots or other kinds of automated bots) without expressly > and intelligibly disclaiming that the text is machine generated > This makes it useless in most content-related use cases as it requires too much extra text to use the results.
About FOSS compatible LLMs, EleutherAI's GPT-J, NeoX, and Pythia and Cerebras-GPT are under Apache 2.0. The question is whether these models are good enough to be useful. However, the same question is relevant to Bloom too. Br, -- Kimmo Virtanen, Zache On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 3:34 AM Lauren Worden <laurenworde...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 1:50 PM Jan Ainali <j...@aina.li> wrote: > > > > I think it is important to, as early as possible, deter all these > attempts to weaken the concept of "open" and that we as a movement need to > take a hard stance against them. > > These proprietary licenses do not fit the spirit of sharing all > knowledge and letting anyone do whatever they want with it. > > Is the BLOOM RAIL license [ > https://huggingface.co/spaces/bigscience/license ] proprietary? My > understanding is that is not proprietary, and the only reason it > doesn't qualify for Open Source Initiative approval is because of > these use restrictions: > > "You agree not to use the Model or Derivatives of the Model: > (a) In any way that violates any applicable national, federal, state, > local or international law or regulation; > (b) For the purpose of exploiting, harming or attempting to exploit or > harm minors in any way; > (c) To generate or disseminate verifiably false information with the > purpose of harming others; > (d) To generate or disseminate personal identifiable information that > can be used to harm an individual; > (e) To generate or disseminate information or content, in any context > (e.g. posts, articles, tweets, chatbots or other kinds of automated > bots) without expressly and intelligibly disclaiming that the text is > machine generated; > (f) To defame, disparage or otherwise harass others; > (g) To impersonate or attempt to impersonate others; > (h) For fully automated decision making that adversely impacts an > individual’s legal rights or otherwise creates or modifies a binding, > enforceable obligation; > (i) For any use intended to or which has the effect of discriminating > against or harming individuals or groups based on online or offline > social behavior or known or predicted personal or personality > characteristics > (j) To exploit any of the vulnerabilities of a specific group of > persons based on their age, social, physical or mental > characteristics, in order to materially distort the behavior of a > person pertaining to that group in a manner that causes or is likely > to cause that person or another person physical or psychological harm; > (k) For any use intended to or which has the effect of discriminating > against individuals or groups based on legally protected > characteristics or categories; > (l) To provide medical advice and medical results interpretation; > (m) To generate or disseminate information for the purpose to be used > for administration of justice, law enforcement, immigration or asylum > processes, such as predicting an individual will commit fraud/crime > commitment (e.g. by text profiling, drawing causal relationships > between assertions made in documents, indiscriminate and > arbitrarily-targeted use)." > > Those restrictions seem very reasonable to me, and I would consider > them an advantage given the problems the field is experiencing, > including the threats to project content integrity. I don't see any > drawbacks, and I see several advantages to encouraging such > restrictions. > > So I expect the BLOOM license would therefor qualify for an exception > as described in > https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikitech:Cloud_Services_Terms_of_use > > There is further discussion of these issues at > https://arxiv.org/pdf/2011.03116.pdf > > -LW > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines > at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > Public archives at > https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/L6DTD5QQWJPZVXDMT4L5NVFWCZKPLXJD/ > To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/D3OT2HV2ZFGRH2ONOD7JVJ4R25MICEL2/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
