The ethics of Open Source
-
The definition of Open Source, by the OSI, has a clause that I feel is an issue today.
Quote:
6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.
I would argue that the most important issue facing development today is the ethics around AI. Beyond even the economic upheavals going on where entire job titles are disappearing in the same way that the printing press caused a fair bit of gnashing of teeth. AI provides the world with a weapon more dangerous than a gun in a more convenient and cheaper package. We all know that laws are woefully slow to keep up with even the previous pace of IT innovation, and AI has leapt forward so fast that the catch up will take years or decades. The OSI specifically says that if you want their badge on your software you cannot say to someone: "with this code, do no harm". You have to explicitly be OK with someone using your AI creation to harm kids, to destroy lives, to create scams, to automate cyberbullying, to impersonate loved ones. This isn't a commentary on the rights and wrongs of writing software. A knife can save a life or take a life: we need them, and so too with software. What I'm concerned about is whether, after 40 years, the blessing of the Open Source badge makes ethical sense. AI provides an escape hatch here where the code can remain Free (as in freedom) but the models are subject to ethical constraints imposed by the owners (or collectors) of the data. To me this won't work because it's like saying the gun is safe because one of the types of bullets it uses is banned (but the other 9 are on Amazon next-day). So what do you guys think? Let's ignore the practical difficulties of ever enforcing a restriction on code use, as well as the difficulty in defining "ethical" in a way that covers every culture, society and time. What is more important to you, as the developer of code you want to share with the World: 1. That the code is always able to be used for anything, without constraint 2. That you have the ability to restrict the use of your code based on ethical concerns
cheers Chris Maunder
I want the ability to restrict the use of my code based on ethical concerns, and licensing allows this. I have absolutely no faith in laws and regulations from the official sector, which are rife with regulatory capture and self-serving exemptions. The nasty examples that you listed are already generally prohibited. The real danger is abuse by the official sector. Large open source projects are typically produced by multiple contributors. In that case, you have to decide whether you're comfortable with the existing license when deciding whether to contribute.
Robust Services Core | Software Techniques for Lemmings | Articles
The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing. -
The definition of Open Source, by the OSI, has a clause that I feel is an issue today.
Quote:
6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.
I would argue that the most important issue facing development today is the ethics around AI. Beyond even the economic upheavals going on where entire job titles are disappearing in the same way that the printing press caused a fair bit of gnashing of teeth. AI provides the world with a weapon more dangerous than a gun in a more convenient and cheaper package. We all know that laws are woefully slow to keep up with even the previous pace of IT innovation, and AI has leapt forward so fast that the catch up will take years or decades. The OSI specifically says that if you want their badge on your software you cannot say to someone: "with this code, do no harm". You have to explicitly be OK with someone using your AI creation to harm kids, to destroy lives, to create scams, to automate cyberbullying, to impersonate loved ones. This isn't a commentary on the rights and wrongs of writing software. A knife can save a life or take a life: we need them, and so too with software. What I'm concerned about is whether, after 40 years, the blessing of the Open Source badge makes ethical sense. AI provides an escape hatch here where the code can remain Free (as in freedom) but the models are subject to ethical constraints imposed by the owners (or collectors) of the data. To me this won't work because it's like saying the gun is safe because one of the types of bullets it uses is banned (but the other 9 are on Amazon next-day). So what do you guys think? Let's ignore the practical difficulties of ever enforcing a restriction on code use, as well as the difficulty in defining "ethical" in a way that covers every culture, society and time. What is more important to you, as the developer of code you want to share with the World: 1. That the code is always able to be used for anything, without constraint 2. That you have the ability to restrict the use of your code based on ethical concerns
cheers Chris Maunder
These last 2 statements seem contradictory to me 1.That the code is always able to be used for anything, without constraint 2.That you have the ability to restrict the use of your code based on ethical concerns ?
"A little time, a little trouble, your better day" Badfinger
-
The definition of Open Source, by the OSI, has a clause that I feel is an issue today.
Quote:
6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.
I would argue that the most important issue facing development today is the ethics around AI. Beyond even the economic upheavals going on where entire job titles are disappearing in the same way that the printing press caused a fair bit of gnashing of teeth. AI provides the world with a weapon more dangerous than a gun in a more convenient and cheaper package. We all know that laws are woefully slow to keep up with even the previous pace of IT innovation, and AI has leapt forward so fast that the catch up will take years or decades. The OSI specifically says that if you want their badge on your software you cannot say to someone: "with this code, do no harm". You have to explicitly be OK with someone using your AI creation to harm kids, to destroy lives, to create scams, to automate cyberbullying, to impersonate loved ones. This isn't a commentary on the rights and wrongs of writing software. A knife can save a life or take a life: we need them, and so too with software. What I'm concerned about is whether, after 40 years, the blessing of the Open Source badge makes ethical sense. AI provides an escape hatch here where the code can remain Free (as in freedom) but the models are subject to ethical constraints imposed by the owners (or collectors) of the data. To me this won't work because it's like saying the gun is safe because one of the types of bullets it uses is banned (but the other 9 are on Amazon next-day). So what do you guys think? Let's ignore the practical difficulties of ever enforcing a restriction on code use, as well as the difficulty in defining "ethical" in a way that covers every culture, society and time. What is more important to you, as the developer of code you want to share with the World: 1. That the code is always able to be used for anything, without constraint 2. That you have the ability to restrict the use of your code based on ethical concerns
cheers Chris Maunder
Given that a good percentage of any code base today is borrowed/adapted from different sites on the Internet (including open source code), I feel the question is more of Accountability. The final Accountability (including ethical accountability) of any software should rest with the current owner, releaser of that software, and not be transferred to the various internet sources from where extracts were taken. In other words, the "buck stops" at the person/company which released such code into production, deployment. As an open source developer i will be unaware of the possible use cases of my code 40 years hence. And i need to be insulated against possible misuse.
-
These last 2 statements seem contradictory to me 1.That the code is always able to be used for anything, without constraint 2.That you have the ability to restrict the use of your code based on ethical concerns ?
"A little time, a little trouble, your better day" Badfinger
They are presented as alternatives. Pick one.
Software rusts. Simon Stephenson, ca 1994. So does this signature. me, 2012
-
The definition of Open Source, by the OSI, has a clause that I feel is an issue today.
Quote:
6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.
I would argue that the most important issue facing development today is the ethics around AI. Beyond even the economic upheavals going on where entire job titles are disappearing in the same way that the printing press caused a fair bit of gnashing of teeth. AI provides the world with a weapon more dangerous than a gun in a more convenient and cheaper package. We all know that laws are woefully slow to keep up with even the previous pace of IT innovation, and AI has leapt forward so fast that the catch up will take years or decades. The OSI specifically says that if you want their badge on your software you cannot say to someone: "with this code, do no harm". You have to explicitly be OK with someone using your AI creation to harm kids, to destroy lives, to create scams, to automate cyberbullying, to impersonate loved ones. This isn't a commentary on the rights and wrongs of writing software. A knife can save a life or take a life: we need them, and so too with software. What I'm concerned about is whether, after 40 years, the blessing of the Open Source badge makes ethical sense. AI provides an escape hatch here where the code can remain Free (as in freedom) but the models are subject to ethical constraints imposed by the owners (or collectors) of the data. To me this won't work because it's like saying the gun is safe because one of the types of bullets it uses is banned (but the other 9 are on Amazon next-day). So what do you guys think? Let's ignore the practical difficulties of ever enforcing a restriction on code use, as well as the difficulty in defining "ethical" in a way that covers every culture, society and time. What is more important to you, as the developer of code you want to share with the World: 1. That the code is always able to be used for anything, without constraint 2. That you have the ability to restrict the use of your code based on ethical concerns
cheers Chris Maunder
The OSI is talking about what defines open source. If a repository was restricted to use by people with the initials Q.C. there would be a lot of people who could not use it and calling it open source would be a stretch of the imagination. As for putting ethical restrictions on software I would say only ethical people will respect it, the rest will use your code anyway and hope they do not get caught. Personally if I felt strongly about something I would put in a disclaimer, rather than a licence clause. Something like: This code is not endorsed for use in cold blooded murder. It makes the point without adding legal restrictions.
-
The definition of Open Source, by the OSI, has a clause that I feel is an issue today.
Quote:
6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.
I would argue that the most important issue facing development today is the ethics around AI. Beyond even the economic upheavals going on where entire job titles are disappearing in the same way that the printing press caused a fair bit of gnashing of teeth. AI provides the world with a weapon more dangerous than a gun in a more convenient and cheaper package. We all know that laws are woefully slow to keep up with even the previous pace of IT innovation, and AI has leapt forward so fast that the catch up will take years or decades. The OSI specifically says that if you want their badge on your software you cannot say to someone: "with this code, do no harm". You have to explicitly be OK with someone using your AI creation to harm kids, to destroy lives, to create scams, to automate cyberbullying, to impersonate loved ones. This isn't a commentary on the rights and wrongs of writing software. A knife can save a life or take a life: we need them, and so too with software. What I'm concerned about is whether, after 40 years, the blessing of the Open Source badge makes ethical sense. AI provides an escape hatch here where the code can remain Free (as in freedom) but the models are subject to ethical constraints imposed by the owners (or collectors) of the data. To me this won't work because it's like saying the gun is safe because one of the types of bullets it uses is banned (but the other 9 are on Amazon next-day). So what do you guys think? Let's ignore the practical difficulties of ever enforcing a restriction on code use, as well as the difficulty in defining "ethical" in a way that covers every culture, society and time. What is more important to you, as the developer of code you want to share with the World: 1. That the code is always able to be used for anything, without constraint 2. That you have the ability to restrict the use of your code based on ethical concerns
cheers Chris Maunder
I think there should be no bans on any type ammunition. Guns are intended to be dangerous, regardless of the ammo you use. (To keep it on topic...) I don't use AI, but I have guns.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013 -
Chris Maunder wrote:
The OSI specifically says that if you want their badge on your software you cannot say to someone: "with this code, do no harm". You have to explicitly be OK with someone using your AI creation to harm kids, to destroy lives, to create scams, to automate cyberbullying, to impersonate loved ones.
It's no different than a government trying to legislate morality and trying to impose your morals unto others. That's impossible because "morality" is subjective. There is objective wrong and right, but there's also subjective. To use a non-political example, if I laugh at a dude for being rejected by a chick because he did something dumb and I find it funny, but he goes home and cries about it while listening to Celine Dion for three years. Did I do this dude harm? Him and his circle of friends that also get rejected might say yes. But, my circle of friends would say dude needs to man up. So then, was there harm? Depends on who you ask, as it's usually the receiver that dictates what's harmful or not (whether or not it really is).
Chris Maunder wrote:
So what do you guys think?
Methinks it's like nuclear fission. We figured out a way to make power plants from that don't pollute the atmosphere. But, of course, now we have nuclear bombs and some plants that cause radiation leaks. Power plants have gotten better about the radiation, but still, you win some you lose some and we can literally destroy the planet with this technology if we go into nuclear war. Would the world be better off without nuclear energy? Dunno. But it happened and cannot unhappen. AI is going to be the same. And while some policing should be done on AI, is that person/entity doing the policing really wise enough to do it? It sure isn't the government. They screw up everything they touch. IMO, making sure AI is open source is our best bet to keep it under control. If anyone can complete with your tech (in theory) then the odds of you turning into the next Google monster are slimmer. Edit: The future of tech will be less and less technical as machines start programming themselves. So, it'll be soft skills more so than source code that'll become the next nugget of IP. Happens with every industry. I'm sure soap was expensive when it first came out. Eventually, source code will be less revered as computers no longer need humans to handle the tech aspects of it. So, not sharing source code won't stop much anywa
It's not about whether something is good and bad. It's about which is more ethical. Is saying "I don't allow this to be used for bad things" or "This must be allowed to be used for anything, no matter how immoral, damaging or outright evil" more ethical?
cheers Chris Maunder
-
I think there should be no bans on any type ammunition. Guns are intended to be dangerous, regardless of the ammo you use. (To keep it on topic...) I don't use AI, but I have guns.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013I'm sitting here, sipping a beer, while giving you a very flat look. Never change, John. The world will crumble.
cheers Chris Maunder
-
These last 2 statements seem contradictory to me 1.That the code is always able to be used for anything, without constraint 2.That you have the ability to restrict the use of your code based on ethical concerns ?
"A little time, a little trouble, your better day" Badfinger
It was a question:
Quote:
What is more important to you, as the developer of code you want to share with the World: - That the code is always able to be used for anything, without constraint - That you have the ability to restrict the use of your code based on ethical concerns
cheers Chris Maunder
-
Given that a good percentage of any code base today is borrowed/adapted from different sites on the Internet (including open source code), I feel the question is more of Accountability. The final Accountability (including ethical accountability) of any software should rest with the current owner, releaser of that software, and not be transferred to the various internet sources from where extracts were taken. In other words, the "buck stops" at the person/company which released such code into production, deployment. As an open source developer i will be unaware of the possible use cases of my code 40 years hence. And i need to be insulated against possible misuse.
Amarnath S wrote:
i need to be insulated against possible misuse.
Therein lies the rub.
cheers Chris Maunder
-
The OSI is talking about what defines open source. If a repository was restricted to use by people with the initials Q.C. there would be a lot of people who could not use it and calling it open source would be a stretch of the imagination. As for putting ethical restrictions on software I would say only ethical people will respect it, the rest will use your code anyway and hope they do not get caught. Personally if I felt strongly about something I would put in a disclaimer, rather than a licence clause. Something like: This code is not endorsed for use in cold blooded murder. It makes the point without adding legal restrictions.
So would that suggest that morally you would be comfortable releasing code you knew could (and perhaps was) being used for Evil Purposes as long as you had a non enforceable "Don't use this for Evil Purposes" statement in the code? At a practical level an expensive, water tight legally binding license is just as enforceable as your note in the minds of many, so I guess it comes down to: Do you make a statement that has no teeth, or do you make a statement with teeth that will not really help the situation? which reduces down to Do you put the effort into a statement, knowing it will not actually help, or do you just mail it in? Which is really Do you put time and money into a statement as a statement unto itself, or just put a statement in so you can say you said "I told them not to" This stuff is hard.
cheers Chris Maunder
-
I'm sitting here, sipping a beer, while giving you a very flat look. Never change, John. The world will crumble.
cheers Chris Maunder
But you laughed, right? Consider your answer - remember, I have guns. :)
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013 -
But you laughed, right? Consider your answer - remember, I have guns. :)
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013Yes, absolutely 😅
cheers Chris Maunder
-
I'm sitting here, sipping a beer, while giving you a very flat look. Never change, John. The world will crumble.
cheers Chris Maunder
Chris Maunder wrote:
sipping a beer, while giving you a very flat look.
Is the beer flat, too? :)
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows. -- 6079 Smith W.
-
They are presented as alternatives. Pick one.
Software rusts. Simon Stephenson, ca 1994. So does this signature. me, 2012
-
It was a question:
Quote:
What is more important to you, as the developer of code you want to share with the World: - That the code is always able to be used for anything, without constraint - That you have the ability to restrict the use of your code based on ethical concerns
cheers Chris Maunder
i recognize i read out of context. i explained earlier. old farts have short term memory and read with less skill. thanx, as i said CP helps. I missed it for about 2 weeks because illness. First thing I did was jump back in the lounge.
"A little time, a little trouble, your better day" Badfinger
-
The definition of Open Source, by the OSI, has a clause that I feel is an issue today.
Quote:
6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.
I would argue that the most important issue facing development today is the ethics around AI. Beyond even the economic upheavals going on where entire job titles are disappearing in the same way that the printing press caused a fair bit of gnashing of teeth. AI provides the world with a weapon more dangerous than a gun in a more convenient and cheaper package. We all know that laws are woefully slow to keep up with even the previous pace of IT innovation, and AI has leapt forward so fast that the catch up will take years or decades. The OSI specifically says that if you want their badge on your software you cannot say to someone: "with this code, do no harm". You have to explicitly be OK with someone using your AI creation to harm kids, to destroy lives, to create scams, to automate cyberbullying, to impersonate loved ones. This isn't a commentary on the rights and wrongs of writing software. A knife can save a life or take a life: we need them, and so too with software. What I'm concerned about is whether, after 40 years, the blessing of the Open Source badge makes ethical sense. AI provides an escape hatch here where the code can remain Free (as in freedom) but the models are subject to ethical constraints imposed by the owners (or collectors) of the data. To me this won't work because it's like saying the gun is safe because one of the types of bullets it uses is banned (but the other 9 are on Amazon next-day). So what do you guys think? Let's ignore the practical difficulties of ever enforcing a restriction on code use, as well as the difficulty in defining "ethical" in a way that covers every culture, society and time. What is more important to you, as the developer of code you want to share with the World: 1. That the code is always able to be used for anything, without constraint 2. That you have the ability to restrict the use of your code based on ethical concerns
cheers Chris Maunder
Not Open Source, but AI ethics related. Billie Eilish, Pearl Jam, 200 artists say AI poses existential threat to their livelihoods | Ars Technica[^]
-Sean ---- Fire Nuts
-
The definition of Open Source, by the OSI, has a clause that I feel is an issue today.
Quote:
6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.
I would argue that the most important issue facing development today is the ethics around AI. Beyond even the economic upheavals going on where entire job titles are disappearing in the same way that the printing press caused a fair bit of gnashing of teeth. AI provides the world with a weapon more dangerous than a gun in a more convenient and cheaper package. We all know that laws are woefully slow to keep up with even the previous pace of IT innovation, and AI has leapt forward so fast that the catch up will take years or decades. The OSI specifically says that if you want their badge on your software you cannot say to someone: "with this code, do no harm". You have to explicitly be OK with someone using your AI creation to harm kids, to destroy lives, to create scams, to automate cyberbullying, to impersonate loved ones. This isn't a commentary on the rights and wrongs of writing software. A knife can save a life or take a life: we need them, and so too with software. What I'm concerned about is whether, after 40 years, the blessing of the Open Source badge makes ethical sense. AI provides an escape hatch here where the code can remain Free (as in freedom) but the models are subject to ethical constraints imposed by the owners (or collectors) of the data. To me this won't work because it's like saying the gun is safe because one of the types of bullets it uses is banned (but the other 9 are on Amazon next-day). So what do you guys think? Let's ignore the practical difficulties of ever enforcing a restriction on code use, as well as the difficulty in defining "ethical" in a way that covers every culture, society and time. What is more important to you, as the developer of code you want to share with the World: 1. That the code is always able to be used for anything, without constraint 2. That you have the ability to restrict the use of your code based on ethical concerns
cheers Chris Maunder
I effectively restrict my professional code to certain arenas, as I will not work for example, on weapons systems. I cannot control what my code under MIT license is used for however, and I produce a lot of that. If someone makes a missile guidance system with my JSON parser, well, I guess more power to them? I won't lose sleep over it, because I didn't make anything specifically for that purpose, and I don't feel morally or ethically obligated to control what other people do with my code. The other thing is - the people I would be least comfortable with using my code - bad actors in general, whether they used it to create malware or anything I else I disagreed with - aren't the type of people to respect license agreements in the first place, so there's that to consider as well. A long time ago I worked on productivity monitoring software for a workplace. I was in my twenties I wasn't considering how it was likely to be used. These days I wouldn't write such software because sadly, it's most likely going to be used to abuse employees. That's just how that software works when you go to squeeze every last bit of "productivity" out of someone's workday. Software micromanagement isn't much better than the meat based variety. I get the same heebie jeebies from AI. It's so easy to abuse AI. Want to sidestep its filters? Ask your question using ASCII art. Or tell it to write War and Peace using only the word "pudding". So even attempts to make it ethical don't work. LLMs are just not a "safe" technology - but then neither is the Internet, but also look what the Internet has done (the bad as well as the good). I understand the Internet, and I've worked with it for long enough to temper what I produce such that I'm not unleashing something terrible upon the world. I can't say the same of anything I'd produce using LLMs or the like. I'd sooner just avoid it, and let other people be the ones to screw up the planet with it.
Check out my IoT graphics library here: https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx And my IoT UI/User Experience library here: https://honeythecodewitch.com/uix
-
Given that a good percentage of any code base today is borrowed/adapted from different sites on the Internet (including open source code), I feel the question is more of Accountability. The final Accountability (including ethical accountability) of any software should rest with the current owner, releaser of that software, and not be transferred to the various internet sources from where extracts were taken. In other words, the "buck stops" at the person/company which released such code into production, deployment. As an open source developer i will be unaware of the possible use cases of my code 40 years hence. And i need to be insulated against possible misuse.
Amarnath S wrote:
Given that a good percentage of any code base today is borrowed/adapted from different sites on the Internet
True of all technology. And science. And philosophy. And religion. And beer for that matter. I am not much of a beer drinker but I am rather glad that originality is not being kept. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/article/ancient-alcoholic-drinks-unusual-starter-human-spit[^]
-
So would that suggest that morally you would be comfortable releasing code you knew could (and perhaps was) being used for Evil Purposes as long as you had a non enforceable "Don't use this for Evil Purposes" statement in the code? At a practical level an expensive, water tight legally binding license is just as enforceable as your note in the minds of many, so I guess it comes down to: Do you make a statement that has no teeth, or do you make a statement with teeth that will not really help the situation? which reduces down to Do you put the effort into a statement, knowing it will not actually help, or do you just mail it in? Which is really Do you put time and money into a statement as a statement unto itself, or just put a statement in so you can say you said "I told them not to" This stuff is hard.
cheers Chris Maunder
