The tech industry can’t agree on what open-source AI means. That’s a problem.

Open source should mean being fully transparent about the data that was used in training on top of the mechanisms, processes, infrastructure and code that was used to build these models. This is different from traditional conceptions of open source which is simply making the code public. OpenAI/MSFT/etc. don’t want to reveal this because no doubt the mechanisms and processes used were unethical and exploitative, and the data used brings up issues of copyright protection.

This genius, powerful, and ethical book is a winner, first for the consumer and also for the automotive service industry. My first objective is to deliver a 5-Star customer service Disney experience. This phenomenal book has already received the award of Platinum Seal of Distinction from the USBR. This is an incredible book that offers the following high-lights: setting the pace for great success, re-investing in staff, delivering irresistible customer service, making the customer #1, building growth on new acquisitions, retention of customers driven by the business model and blueprint, using AutoServe1 digital vehicle inspection and AI from Hunter Engineering, smart vehicle maintenance to reduce cost and add safety, making your business more attractive to women and lastly the financial business model, a must have. Now add the pixie dust! This brilliant intuitive book hits every note; it is a smart book for the consumer and the auto service industry. No tool, system, process or platform will ever replace meticulous attention to detail. Visit: donfunkofficialbookwebsite.com ?

If nobody knows what "AI" means, how3 could any variant of an unknown be defined? The worry about malevolent computers spontaneously deciding to exterminate mankind is silly.?I am far more concerned about malevolent humans using AI, big data, or cyber hacking to attack me or just building bombs or buying guns to kill me on general principles. The great murderers of recent history, Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, didn't use computers; they killed millions and millions of people with nothing but file cabinets and telephones.?Malevolent humans don't need computers to be a major threat to mankind.?Until we solve the problem of evil humans, I won't worry about a theoretical future malevolent AI. After all, how hard is it for parents to instill motivation in their kids??Someone would need to impart Artificial Motivation (AM) into computers.?We don't even have a Turing test to measure motivation. Computers do what they're programmed to do.?I worry far more about bad guys programming computers to attack me instead of worrying about AM deciding to attack me on its own.

While the article emphasizes the ambiguity of "open-source AI", a more pressing issue might be ensuring the ethical and responsible use of AI models regardless of their licensing status. After all, open-source code doesn't automatically guarantee freedom from bias, unintended consequences, or questions of accountability. In the race to define open-source AI, are we overlooking the more urgent need to establish guidelines and frameworks for the ethical use of AI, regardless of its licensing model?