Cailean Osborne

Shachar Don-Yehiya, Ben Burtenshaw, Ramon Fernandez Astudillo et al. · huggingface, ibm-research

Human feedback on conversations with language language models (LLMs) is central to how these systems learn about the world, improve their capabilities, and are steered toward desirable and safe behaviors. However, this feedback is mostly collected by frontier AI labs and kept behind closed doors. In this work, we bring together interdisciplinary experts to assess the opportunities and challenges to realizing an open ecosystem of human feedback for AI. We first look for successful practices in peer production, open source, and citizen science communities. We then characterize the main challenges for open human feedback. For each, we survey current approaches and offer recommendations. We end by envisioning the components needed to underpin a sustainable and open human feedback ecosystem. In the center of this ecosystem are mutually beneficial feedback loops, between users and specialized models, incentivizing a diverse stakeholders community of model trainers and feedback providers to support a general open feedback pool.

Cailean Osborne

Companies claim to "democratise" artificial intelligence (AI) when they donate AI open source software (OSS) to non-profit foundations or release AI models, among others, but what does this term mean and why do they do it? As the impact of AI on society and the economy grows, understanding the commercial incentives behind AI democratisation efforts is crucial for ensuring these efforts serve broader interests beyond commercial agendas. Towards this end, this study employs a mixed-methods approach to investigate commercial incentives for 43 AI OSS donations to the Linux Foundation. It makes contributions to both research and practice. It contributes a taxonomy of both individual and organisational social, economic, and technological incentives for AI democratisation. In particular, it highlights the role of democratising the governance and control rights of an OSS project (i.e., from one company to open governance) as a structural enabler for downstream goals, such as attracting external contributors, reducing development costs, and influencing industry standards, among others. Furthermore, OSS donations are often championed by individual developers within companies, highlighting the importance of the bottom-up incentives for AI democratisation. The taxonomy provides a framework and toolkit for discerning incentives for other AI democratisation efforts, such as the release of AI models. The paper concludes with a discussion of future research directions.

Matt White, Ibrahim Haddad, Cailean Osborne et al.

Generative artificial intelligence (AI) offers numerous opportunities for research and innovation, but its commercialization has raised concerns about the transparency and safety of frontier AI models. Most models lack the necessary components for full understanding, auditing, and reproducibility, and some model producers use restrictive licenses whilst claiming that their models are "open source". To address these concerns, we introduce the Model Openness Framework (MOF), a three-tiered ranked classification system that rates machine learning models based on their completeness and openness, following open science principles. For each MOF class, we specify code, data, and documentation components of the model development lifecycle that must be released and under which open licenses. In addition, the Model Openness Tool (MOT) provides a user-friendly reference implementation to evaluate the openness and completeness of models against the MOF classification system. Together, the MOF and MOT provide timely practical guidance for (i) model producers to enhance the openness and completeness of their publicly-released models, and (ii) model consumers to identify open models and their constituent components that can be permissively used, studied, modified, and redistributed. Through the MOF, we seek to establish completeness and openness as core tenets of responsible AI research and development, and to promote best practices in the burgeoning open AI ecosystem.

Cailean Osborne

Governments are increasingly funding open source software (OSS) development to support software security, digital sovereignty, and national competitiveness in science and innovation, amongst others. However, little is known about how OSS developers evaluate the relative benefits and drawbacks of governmental funding for OSS. This study explores this question through a case study on scikit-learn, a Python library for machine learning, funded by public research grants, commercial sponsorship, micro-donations, and a 32 euro million grant announced in France's artificial intelligence strategy. Through 25 interviews with scikit-learn's maintainers and funders, this study makes two key contributions. First, it contributes empirical findings about the benefits and drawbacks of public and private funding in an impactful OSS project, and the governance protocols employed by the maintainers to balance the diverse interests of their community and funders. Second, it offers practical lessons on funding for OSS developers, governments, and companies based on the experience of scikit-learn. The paper concludes with key recommendations for practitioners and future research directions.

Cailean Osborne, Farbod Daneshyan, Runzhi He et al.

Companies, including market rivals, have long collaborated on the development of open source software (OSS), resulting in a tangle of co-operation and competition known as "open source co-opetition". While prior work investigates open source co-opetition in OSS projects that are hosted by vendor-neutral foundations, we have a limited understanding thereof in OSS projects that are hosted and governed by one company. Given their prevalence, it is timely to investigate open source co-opetition in such contexts. Towards this end, we conduct a mixed-methods analysis of three company-hosted OSS projects in the artificial intelligence (AI) industry: Meta's PyTorch (prior to its donation to the Linux Foundation), Google's TensorFlow, and Hugging Face's Transformers. We contribute three key findings. First, while the projects exhibit similar code authorship patterns between host and external companies (80%/20% of commits), collaborations are structured differently (e.g., decentralised vs. hub-and-spoke networks). Second, host and external companies engage in strategic, non-strategic, and contractual collaborations, with varying incentives and collaboration practices. Some of the observed collaborations are specific to the AI industry (e.g., hardware-software optimizations or AI model integrations), while others are typical of the broader software industry (e.g., bug fixing or task outsourcing). Third, single-vendor governance creates a power imbalance that influences open source co-opetition practices and possibilities, from the host company's singular decision-making power (e.g., the risk of license change) to their community involvement strategy (e.g., from over-control to over-delegation). We conclude with recommendations for future research.

Johan Linåker, Cailean Osborne, Jennifer Ding et al.

The proliferation of open large language models (LLMs) is fostering a vibrant ecosystem of research and innovation in artificial intelligence (AI). However, the methods of collaboration used to develop open LLMs both before and after their public release have not yet been comprehensively studied, limiting our understanding of how open LLM projects are initiated, organized, and governed as well as what opportunities there are to foster this ecosystem even further. We address this gap through an exploratory analysis of open collaboration throughout the development and reuse lifecycle of open LLMs, drawing on semi-structured interviews with the developers of 14 open LLMs from grassroots projects, research institutes, startups, and Big Tech companies in North America, Europe, Africa, and Asia. We make three key contributions to research and practice. First, collaboration in open LLM projects extends far beyond the LLMs themselves, encompassing datasets, benchmarks, open source frameworks, leaderboards, knowledge sharing and discussion forums, and compute partnerships, among others. Second, open LLM developers have a variety of social, economic, and technological motivations, from democratizing AI access and promoting open science to building regional ecosystems and expanding language representation. Third, the sampled open LLM projects exhibit five distinct organizational models, ranging from single company projects to non-profit-sponsored grassroots projects, which vary in their centralization of control and community engagement strategies used throughout the open LLM lifecycle. We conclude with practical recommendations for stakeholders seeking to support the global community building a more open future for AI.

Cailean Osborne, Jennifer Ding, Hannah Rose Kirk

Open model developers have emerged as key actors in the political economy of artificial intelligence (AI), but we still have a limited understanding of collaborative practices in the open AI ecosystem. This paper responds to this gap with a three-part quantitative analysis of development activity on the Hugging Face (HF) Hub, a popular platform for building, sharing, and demonstrating models. First, various types of activity across 348,181 model, 65,761 dataset, and 156,642 space repositories exhibit right-skewed distributions. Activity is extremely imbalanced between repositories; for example, over 70% of models have 0 downloads, while 1% account for 99% of downloads. Furthermore, licenses matter: there are statistically significant differences in collaboration patterns in model repositories with permissive, restrictive, and no licenses. Second, we analyse a snapshot of the social network structure of collaboration in model repositories, finding that the community has a core-periphery structure, with a core of prolific developers and a majority of isolate developers (89%). Upon removing the isolate developers from the network, collaboration is characterised by high reciprocity regardless of developers' network positions. Third, we examine model adoption through the lens of model usage in spaces, finding that a minority of models, developed by a handful of companies, are widely used on the HF Hub. Overall, activity on the HF Hub is characterised by Pareto distributions, congruent with OSS development patterns on platforms like GitHub. We conclude with recommendations for researchers, companies, and policymakers to advance our understanding of open AI development.