Web lists-archives.com

Re: Bits from /me: A humble draft policy on "deep learning v.s. freedom"

On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 11:37:41PM -0700, Mo Zhou wrote:
> - The datasets used for training a "ToxicCandy" may be
>   private/non-free and not everybody can access them. (This case is more
>   likely a result of problematic upstream licensing, but it sometimes
> happens).
>   One got a free model from internet. That little candy tastes sweet.
>   One wanted to make this candy at home with the provided recipe, but
>   surprisingly found out that non-free ingredients are inevitable.
>     -- ToxicCandy

I'm not so sure this model would be unacceptable.  It's no different than
a game's image being a photo of a tree in your garden -- not reproducible by
anyone but you (or someone you invite).  Or, a wordlist frequency produced
by analyzing results of a google search.

At some point, the work becomes an entity on its own rather than the result
of processing some dataset.

A more ridiculous argument: the input is a project requirement sheet, the
neural network being four pieces of wetware, working for 3 months.  Do you
insist on _this_ being reproducible, or would you accept the product as free
software?  Sufficiently advanced artificial intelligence might be not that

⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ Latin:   meow 4 characters, 4 columns,  4 bytes
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Greek:   μεου 4 characters, 4 columns,  8 bytes
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋  Runes:   ᛗᛖᛟᚹ 4 characters, 4 columns, 12 bytes
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ Chinese: 喵   1 character,  2 columns,  3 bytes <-- best!