Open source #AI has been a key issue in policy debates, and #AIAct includes provisions that regulate development and sharing of #opensource AI development.
We've been following the proposed rules as they meandered through several different approaches. Now elements of the final version have been made public.
The big question was whether transparency and other obligations need to be mandated for open source AI, or they can be self-regulated – under the assumption that open source developers ensure these elements based on principles of open development.
The agreed upon wording of the AI Act assumes the later, and makes open source exempt from regulation of general purpose AI models, including transparency obligations.
We think that this is a problem, especially that lack of agreed standards that define open source AI means that there is an risk of open washing.
You can read more about this on our blog: Paul Keller wrote a detailed analysis of the provisions:
https://openfuture.eu/blog/a-frankenstein-like-approach-open-source-in-the-ai-act/
That is, it can be expected that companies will circumvent the limitations of #AIAct by, for example, calling open-source AI such where the code is open but the training data is closed.
@miklo this depends on how the AIAct will be enforced, let’s hope that the exception will be protected from such circumvention. And a more clear, precise definition is the starting point