- Jun 2023
-
-
Interesting discussion on ways to regulate AI use, and the role (limitations) of open source there, by Bruce Schneier and Waldo.
It raises some interesting questions about accountability of the open source community. They argue, as many others, that OS community is too fluid to be regulated. I tend to disagree - OS community has many levels, and a certain OS component (say a GitHub code) gets picked up by others at certain points to push to a mass market for benefit (commercial or other). It is when such OS products are picked up that the risk explodes - and it is then when we see tangible entities (companies or orgs) that should be and are accountable for how they use the OS code and push it to mass market.
I see an analogy with vulnerabilities in digital products, and the responsibility of OS community for the supply chain security. While each coder should be accountable, for individuals it probably boils down to ethics (as the effect of a single github product is very limited); but there are entities in this supply chain that integrate such components that clearly should be hold accountable.
My comments below. It is an interesting question for Geneva Dialogue as well, not only for AI debates.
cc ||JovanK|| ||anastasiyakATdiplomacy.edu||
-
Now that the open-source community is remixing LLMs, it’s no longer possible to regulate the technology by dictating what research and development can be done;
There is a certain analogy with security of the open source, and how to ensure that open source code, which ends up being integral part of commercial products, is secure at the outset. It might not be possible to hold every code-writer in the open source community accountable for vulnerabilities, but there are certain moments later on when that code is picked up and commercialised by others, which allow the window of accountability. It is similar with LLM: it is when a certain code is picked up by others (often for monetisation or some other benefit) that accountability exists as well.
-
Open source isn’t very good at original innovations, but once an innovation is seen and picked up, the community can be a pretty overwhelming thing.
It is exactly this 'pick up' which is a milestone to look at: this is when actors involved go beyond a single github contributor, and involve certain entities (organisations or companies) which put certain resources in the promotion and reach of the product they have integrated, in order to create a mass market effect. This is where accountability for development can be looked for as well.
-
The only governance mechanism available to governments now is to regulate usage (and only for those who pay attention to the law), or to offer incentives to those (including startups, individuals, and small companies) who are now the drivers of innovation in the arena.
Is it really so? While open source community is diverse and numerous (and often boils down to a single person), their products become significant when they are put together and to the market (whether for free or monetisation). In other words, the 'danger' is not in each piece of code itself, but once those pieces are integrated into a powerful and mass-used product. This means there are certain milestones when the risks become sufficiently big to address it - and those milestones also involve certain entities (typically companies or organisations) which benefit from the reach of the product in one way or another. Devil is in details: we need to closely monitor how and when open source products come to a mass market and cause a concern - and who are the main actors at that very point that could be hold accountable. This still belongs to 'development', and addresses the developers (or integrators), not the users.
-
- Aug 2022
-
-
For many years, this global internet served U.S. interests, and U.S. leaders often called for countries to embrace an open internet or risk being left behind. But this utopian vision became just that: a vision, not the reality. Instead, over time the internet became less free, more fragmented, and less secure. Authoritarian regimes have managed to limit its use by those who might weaken their hold and have learned how to use it to further repress would-be or actual opponents.
A sobering thought: internet is not a mechanism of US foreign policy any more; rather, 'adversaries' are using it against US values more and more. Open internet is a utopia, it says.
-
- Mar 2022
-
hdr.undp.org hdr.undp.org
-
Examples of these institutional arrangements are open-source platforms for software applications (such as Apache Hadoop, Nginx and Github), accessi-ble by digital and nondigital firms at zero cost. Many firms and developers use Github, an open-source re-pository of tools, software and application programs.
Importance of open source platform
-
-
www.eda.admin.ch www.eda.admin.ch
-
The Foreign Policy Strategy 2020–23 defines the basic principles for digital foreign policy and sets out the vision of a free, open and secure digital space.
Importance of open Internet.
-
- Feb 2022
-
www.shareweb.ch www.shareweb.ch
-
an open-source software that seeks to provide a comprehensive sys-tem linking patient, provider and payer data.
Open source is gaining renewed relevance due to digital geopolitics: https://circleid.com/posts/20220126-why-aopena-may-become-the-keyword-of-the-digital-world-in-2022
SDC can renew efforts for strengthening 'open' approach in their development activities.
-
-
opendatabarometer.org opendatabarometer.org
-
The Open Data Barometer
Open data barometer
-
-
www.diplomacy.edu www.diplomacy.edu
-
WHAT ARE OPEN DATA
Open data
-
Using data to fight droughts, Namibia
Water and data in Namibia
-
Use open standards, open data, open source and open innovation: An ‘open’ approach allows for collaboration in digital DC and avoids duplication. Open source also supports scaling (Principle 3) and sustainability (Principle 4).
How open supports scaling (principle 3) and sustainability (principle 4)
-
- Jan 2022
-
spectrum.ieee.org spectrum.ieee.org
-
When an operator buys an end-to-end system from Nokia or Ericsson or Huawei, it also knows it can depend on that vendor to support the network when problems crop up. Not so with Open RAN deployments, where no single vendor is likely to claim responsibility for interoperability issues. Larger operators will likely be able to support their own Open RAN networks, but smaller operators may be reliant on companies like Mavenir, which have positioned themselves as system integrators.
Another possible drawback of ORAN: ensuring interoperability of various vendors, in contrast to responsibility of big vendors (similar challenge to open source software). Open question: how can this impact security (similar to open source security issues)?
-
-
spectrum.ieee.org spectrum.ieee.org
-
into a movement called Open RAN (for ‘Radio Access Network,’ the portion of a cell network, like a cell tower, that connects a phone to everything else), the operators have begun forcing vendors to work with them to create open interfaces between components, split software and hardware functions, and develop more AI technologies to manage networks.
New relevance of open source movement.
||VladaR||
Tags
Annotators
URL
-
- Sep 2021
-
estatements.unmeetings.org estatements.unmeetings.org
-
There is already much work being done. But we need to give these efforts a stronger push, througheducation, training, and, improving digital skills and literacy across the board; investing in infrastructure, for universal and affordable internet connectivity; and expanding access to data and digital public goods, including open-source software and digital utilities.
-
s a small country, a vital node in the international digital network, Singapore has always advocated a global architecture that is open, inclusive, inter-operable, and multi-stakeholder
-