为什么 "开放 "的人工智能系统实际上是封闭的?

IF 50.5 1区 综合性期刊 Q1 MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES
Nature Pub Date : 2024-11-27 DOI:10.1038/s41586-024-08141-1
David Gray Widder, Meredith Whittaker, Sarah Myers West
{"title":"为什么 \"开放 \"的人工智能系统实际上是封闭的?","authors":"David Gray Widder, Meredith Whittaker, Sarah Myers West","doi":"10.1038/s41586-024-08141-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This paper examines ‘open’ artificial intelligence (AI). Claims about ‘open’ AI often lack precision, frequently eliding scrutiny of substantial industry concentration in large-scale AI development and deployment, and often incorrectly applying understandings of ‘open’ imported from free and open-source software to AI systems. At present, powerful actors are seeking to shape policy using claims that ‘open’ AI is either beneficial to innovation and democracy, on the one hand, or detrimental to safety, on the other. When policy is being shaped, definitions matter. To add clarity to this debate, we examine the basis for claims of openness in AI, and offer a material analysis of what AI is and what ‘openness’ in AI can and cannot provide: examining models, data, labour, frameworks, and computational power. We highlight three main affordances of ‘open’ AI, namely transparency, reusability, and extensibility, and we observe that maximally ‘open’ AI allows some forms of oversight and experimentation on top of existing models. However, we find that openness alone does not perturb the concentration of power in AI. Just as many traditional open-source software projects were co-opted in various ways by large technology companies, we show how rhetoric around ‘open’ AI is frequently wielded in ways that exacerbate rather than reduce concentration of power in the AI sector.</p>","PeriodicalId":18787,"journal":{"name":"Nature","volume":"7 8 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":50.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Why ‘open’ AI systems are actually closed, and why this matters\",\"authors\":\"David Gray Widder, Meredith Whittaker, Sarah Myers West\",\"doi\":\"10.1038/s41586-024-08141-1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>This paper examines ‘open’ artificial intelligence (AI). Claims about ‘open’ AI often lack precision, frequently eliding scrutiny of substantial industry concentration in large-scale AI development and deployment, and often incorrectly applying understandings of ‘open’ imported from free and open-source software to AI systems. At present, powerful actors are seeking to shape policy using claims that ‘open’ AI is either beneficial to innovation and democracy, on the one hand, or detrimental to safety, on the other. When policy is being shaped, definitions matter. To add clarity to this debate, we examine the basis for claims of openness in AI, and offer a material analysis of what AI is and what ‘openness’ in AI can and cannot provide: examining models, data, labour, frameworks, and computational power. We highlight three main affordances of ‘open’ AI, namely transparency, reusability, and extensibility, and we observe that maximally ‘open’ AI allows some forms of oversight and experimentation on top of existing models. However, we find that openness alone does not perturb the concentration of power in AI. Just as many traditional open-source software projects were co-opted in various ways by large technology companies, we show how rhetoric around ‘open’ AI is frequently wielded in ways that exacerbate rather than reduce concentration of power in the AI sector.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":18787,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Nature\",\"volume\":\"7 8 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":50.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Nature\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"103\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-08141-1\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"综合性期刊\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nature","FirstCategoryId":"103","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-08141-1","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文探讨了 "开放 "人工智能(AI)。关于 "开放 "人工智能的说法往往缺乏准确性,经常忽略对大规模人工智能开发和部署中大量产业集中的审查,而且经常错误地将从自由和开源软件中导入的 "开放 "理解应用于人工智能系统。目前,有权势的行为者正试图利用 "开放 "人工智能一方面有利于创新和民主,另一方面不利于安全的说法来制定政策。在制定政策时,定义很重要。为了让这场辩论更加清晰,我们研究了人工智能开放性主张的基础,并对人工智能是什么以及人工智能的 "开放性 "能提供什么和不能提供什么进行了实质性分析:研究模型、数据、劳动力、框架和计算能力。我们强调了 "开放 "人工智能的三大能力,即透明度、可重用性和可扩展性,并观察到最大程度的 "开放 "人工智能允许在现有模型基础上进行某种形式的监督和实验。然而,我们发现,开放本身并不能扰乱人工智能领域的权力集中。正如许多传统的开源软件项目被大型科技公司以各种方式收编一样,我们也展示了围绕 "开放 "人工智能的言论是如何经常被用来加剧而非减少人工智能领域的权力集中的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Why ‘open’ AI systems are actually closed, and why this matters

This paper examines ‘open’ artificial intelligence (AI). Claims about ‘open’ AI often lack precision, frequently eliding scrutiny of substantial industry concentration in large-scale AI development and deployment, and often incorrectly applying understandings of ‘open’ imported from free and open-source software to AI systems. At present, powerful actors are seeking to shape policy using claims that ‘open’ AI is either beneficial to innovation and democracy, on the one hand, or detrimental to safety, on the other. When policy is being shaped, definitions matter. To add clarity to this debate, we examine the basis for claims of openness in AI, and offer a material analysis of what AI is and what ‘openness’ in AI can and cannot provide: examining models, data, labour, frameworks, and computational power. We highlight three main affordances of ‘open’ AI, namely transparency, reusability, and extensibility, and we observe that maximally ‘open’ AI allows some forms of oversight and experimentation on top of existing models. However, we find that openness alone does not perturb the concentration of power in AI. Just as many traditional open-source software projects were co-opted in various ways by large technology companies, we show how rhetoric around ‘open’ AI is frequently wielded in ways that exacerbate rather than reduce concentration of power in the AI sector.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Nature
Nature 综合性期刊-综合性期刊
CiteScore
90.00
自引率
1.20%
发文量
3652
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Nature is a prestigious international journal that publishes peer-reviewed research in various scientific and technological fields. The selection of articles is based on criteria such as originality, importance, interdisciplinary relevance, timeliness, accessibility, elegance, and surprising conclusions. In addition to showcasing significant scientific advances, Nature delivers rapid, authoritative, insightful news, and interpretation of current and upcoming trends impacting science, scientists, and the broader public. The journal serves a dual purpose: firstly, to promptly share noteworthy scientific advances and foster discussions among scientists, and secondly, to ensure the swift dissemination of scientific results globally, emphasizing their significance for knowledge, culture, and daily life.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信