Microsoft's Proprietary/Artificial Intelligence (AI) Nonsense, Openwashing

posted by Roy Schestowitz on Aug 19, 2023

• "Open" "AI" isn't

  Openwashing is the trick that large "AI" companies use to evade regulation and neutralizing critics, by casting themselves as forces of ethical capitalism, committed to the virtue of openness. No one should be surprised to learn that the products of the "open" wing of an industry whose products are neither "artificial," nor "intelligent," are also not "open." Every word AI huxters say is a lie; including "and," and "the."

• Open (For Business): Big Tech, Concentrated Power, and the Political Economy of Open AI

  This paper examines ‘open’ AI in the context of recent attention to open and open source AI systems. We find that the terms ‘open’ and ‘open source’ are used in confusing and diverse ways, often constituting more aspiration or marketing than technical descriptor, and frequently blending concepts from both open source software and open science. This complicates an already complex landscape, in which there is currently no agreed on definition of ‘open’ in the context of AI, and as such the term is being applied to widely divergent offerings with little reference to a stable descriptor.

  So, what exactly is ‘open’ about ‘open’ AI, and what does ‘open’ AI enable? To better answer these questions we begin this paper by looking at the various resources required to create and deploy AI systems, alongside the components that comprise these systems. We do this with an eye to which of these can, or cannot, be made open to scrutiny, reuse, and extension. What does ‘open’ mean in practice, and what are its limits in the context of AI? We find that while a handful of maximally open AI systems exist, which offer intentional and extensive transparency, reusability, and extensibility– the resources needed to build AI from scratch, and to deploy large AI systems at scale, remain ‘closed’—available only to those with significant (almost always corporate) resources. From here, we zoom out and examine the history of open source, its cleave from free software in the mid 1990s, and the contested processes by which open source has been incorporated into, and instrumented by, large tech corporations. As a current day example of the overbroad and ill-defined use of the term by tech companies, we look at ‘open’ in the context of OpenAI the company. We trace its moves from a humanity-focused nonprofit to a for-profit partnered with Microsoft, and its shifting position on ‘open’ AI. Finally, we examine the current discourse around ‘open’ AI–looking at how the term and the (mis)understandings about what ‘open’ enables are being deployed to shape the public’s and policymakers’ understanding about AI, its capabilities, and the power of the AI industry. In particular, we examine the arguments being made for and against ‘open’ and open source AI, who’s making them, and how they are being deployed in the debate over AI regulation.

  Taken together, we find that ‘open’ AI can, in its more maximal instantiations, provide transparency, reusability, and extensibility that can enable third parties to deploy and build on top of powerful off-the-shelf AI models. These maximalist forms of ‘open’ AI can also allow some forms of auditing and oversight. But even the most open of ‘open’ AI systems do not, on their own, ensure democratic access to or meaningful competition in AI, nor does openness alone solve the problem of oversight and scrutiny. While we recognize that there is a vibrant community of earnest contributors building and contributing to ‘open’ AI efforts in the name of expanding access and insight, we also find that marketing around openness and investment in (somewhat) open AI systems is being leveraged by powerful companies to bolster their positions in the face of growing interest in AI regulation. And that some companies have moved to embrace ‘open’ AI as a mechanism to entrench dominance, using the rhetoric of ‘open’ AI to expand market power while investing in ‘open’ AI efforts in ways that allow them to set standards of development while benefiting from the free labor of open source contributors.

• Microsoft pulls article recommending Ottawa Food Bank to tourists

  The list was rife with errors. It featured a photo of the Rideau River in an entry about the Rideau Canal, and a photo of the Rideau Canal in an entry about Parc Omega near Montebello, Que. It advised tourists to enjoy the pristine grass of "Parliament Hills."

  But the Ottawa Food Bank entry earned the most mockery in technology publications and on social media. The article called the food bank one of Ottawa's "beautiful attractions," before putting it third on the list.

• Microsoft Deletes Bizarre AI-Generated Travel Guide That Recommended Visiting Food Bank With an "Empty Stomach"

  The embarrassing listicle was spotted by tech writer Paris Marx on Thursday. It ranked the Ottawa Food Bank smack dab in third place among the capital's must-see tourist attractions, only below The Winterlude Festival and the National War Memorial — all of which it calls "beautiful attractions" that you "cannot miss!"

• Understanding CC Licenses and Generative AI

  You can use CC licenses to grant permission for reuse in any situation that requires permission under copyright. However, the licenses do not supersede existing limitations and exceptions; in other words, as a licensor, you cannot use the licenses to prohibit a use if it is otherwise permitted by limitations and exceptions to copyright.

  This is directly relevant to AI, given that the use of copyrighted works to train AI may be protected under existing exceptions and limitations to copyright. For instance, we believe there are strong arguments that, in most cases, using copyrighted works to train generative AI models would be fair use in the United States, and such training can be protected by the text and data mining exception in the EU. However, whether these limitations apply may depend on the particular use case.

• I know what you did next summer: Microsoft to kill off Xbox 360 Store

  Gamers will still be able to access and play their already-bought games after that date. In an announcement, the software giant reassured folks it was "committed to supporting Xbox 360 gameplay for the foreseeable future — and you will still be able to play and re-download previously purchased content and connect with friends."

  This means Microsoft isn't shutting down its servers just yet. But while players won't lose access to their games on the console, the same can't be said of media purchased through the Xbox's Movies and TV app. After the July deadline, that application will cease to function, and all such content purchased through the app will remain available only on supported consoles and PC.