[contingencies]

If you don’t like the way your data is used to train AI models, you can’t currently move your data to a non-AI service while still contributing to and using iNat data, even if such a service existed. But you should be able to do that.

100x yes! I was disgusted to learn that while the very non-profit status iNaturalist enjoys demands that they share their output, the organization thinks keeping its models secret is legitimate. https://github.com/inaturalist/inatVisionAPI No, it isn't. I am a big contributor to iNaturalist and will be sharing my concerns at the next local meeting. I tried to raise the question through the forums and was censored.

Frankly, it seems to me that iNaturalist is to open science as Android is to open source. That is to say in name only, not in spirit, because "legalese" and "market position" and "lack of enforcement". Not surprised to learn Google's money is assisting with corrupting them.

If you contribute to iNaturalist, COMPLAIN. If you want to start a class action, count me in.

[tensor]

Asking for their models to be open and banning AI are two different things. AI is used throughout the scientific world and banning it would be immensely damaging. Putting aside consumer use cases, being able to do large scale analysis or search via machine learning is incredibly important to various fields of science.

[anotherpaul]

100% agree, I am still shocked that the models are not open sourced. It's the data from the community and I feel it goes very much against the spirit of the community to keep the machine learning part, which is very central to the app, so secret.

[turtle_]

Do you have a copy of what you posted that was censored? I assume you mean censored on the iNat forum.

[contingencies]

Yes, I do. ~Sept 2025.

Subject: iNaturalist must commit to being open

Platform(s), such as mobile, website, API, other: All

URLs (aka web addresses) of any pages, if relevant: https://github.com/inaturalist/inatVisionAPI

Description of need:

iNaturalist makes a subset of its machine learning models publicly available while keeping full species classification models private due to “intellectual property considerations and organizational policy”.

The community contribute far too much time, data, expertise and money to tolerate this, which opens questions about fundamental compatibility with science.

Feature request details:

iNaturalist should:

Remove non-open data; and Commit to fully open output…within a fixed period of time, in order to maintain community support.

Response was "Hi, this seems to be a general appeal to iNaturalist staff rather than a specific feature on the website or app that would be developed, so I’ve copied the text of your request here, where they can see it."

No response was received, so I responded to the thread as follows.

Disappointed to be effectively censored and then receive literally zero response to this after three calendar weeks.

With regards to the US status of iNaturalist:

Scientific 501(c)(3) Nonprofits are organized primarily to conduct scientific research in the public interest. Their research must benefit the general public, not specific individuals or commercial enterprises.

IMHO it’s very hard to argue that something is in the public interest if the public can’t see it, hold it, analyze it, criticize it, and replicate it: particularly in the field of science where we have a replication crisis.

If it’s a black-box service, it’s not science.

If it’s replicable and open, thus provable, it’s science.

iNaturalist should commit to fully open output…within a fixed period of time, in order to maintain community support. Otherwise, it risks community pushback on its consume-but-dont-give model, which is being sheltered under a false heading of “science”.

No response was received. Then sent a final follow-up.

Please be advised due to the lack of response I will be forced to publish my concerns in conventional botanical media.

To date, no response has been received. I am looking at that option for this year.

[turtle_]

Can you explain what you mean by censored? For example if this was on the forum was the post deleted? If this was a bug filed, was the bug closed or deleted?

[contingencies]

The original post was "not approved", although I have >10,000 observations and am a long term community member and this is a legit thing to complain about. The alleged opportunity for interaction occurred in some kind of private forum-hosted message thread, though no participation eventuated.