[jkeisling]

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]

I think the more interesting aspect of all this is that the confusion created by this new business model ( not sure to classify it so business model had to do ) appears to be largely intentional. The subject matter is complicated to begin with experts being niche of a niche of a niche and the assumption that the general public can even understand it ( and whether it can even dumbed down to digestible sound bites ) is, in my mind, very optimistic. Now, courts are not typically stacked with dummies, but again how many are well versed in issues of technology?

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]

"Now, courts are not typically stacked with dummies, but again how many are well versed in issues of technology?"

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.

[A4ET8a8uTh0]

Sure. My point is that I would so much rather have a decision handed down that was considered on actual merits ( we might disagree, but at least I would be able to see some sort of real consideration and not what amounts to talking points from various lobbyists ). A judge that has zero exposure in that area is at best 50/50 and regardless of the ruling I will be annoyed that a person with zero knowledge is declaring how something he knows little to no about can be used ( just like I am more and more annoyed about political class in Washington, but I am more inclined to believe these days they know exactly what they are doing -- serve their own interests ).

To your point, it is absolutely not panacea ( new blood is inevitably ending in government and the result so far is in line with what you said ), but it would at least be a starting point.