Event JSON
{
"id": "fb19e686fcfad6616fa6f54aaf8537152eb00507f3cd69518e9f7eb4e14a5d93",
"pubkey": "ba5d9f72488de5113974616523a1ea0991af580969a133169425bfacb1eaaaee",
"created_at": 1731668122,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"proxy",
"https://writing.exchange/@erlend/113486602072642397",
"web"
],
[
"t",
"opensource"
],
[
"t",
"ai"
],
[
"proxy",
"https://writing.exchange/users/erlend/statuses/113486602072642397",
"activitypub"
],
[
"L",
"pink.momostr"
],
[
"l",
"pink.momostr.activitypub:https://writing.exchange/users/erlend/statuses/113486602072642397",
"pink.momostr"
],
[
"-"
]
],
"content": "https://writing.kemitchell.com/2024/11/14/OSI-AI\n\n\u003e The Open Source Initiative’s recently announced “Open Source AI Definition” surprised me in a way I expect many readers could miss: they’re defining “open” not just in terms of what bits we can get and what we’re allowed to do with them, but also partly in terms of OSI’s own institutional blessing.\n\n\u003e It isn’t just a definition of what “open source AI” is or ought to be, but implicitly also a process for bestowing that [OSI] status or withholding it.\n\n#opensource #ai",
"sig": "0f37e1bf2ba5405220acdb494be2c2ef147a55cdd4f612cfe59ff301a3527d2fcbe8ca0f3f9b6bb2dcbe000804afc7b91071b3ef6f7f703d34c86a9a04532c6f"
}