Reimagining Open Source and Openness in AI: Co-Creating Responsible Technological Futures
重新构想人工智能中的开源与开放性:共创负责任的科技未来
Genevieve Smith, Hiral Patel, Steven Luo, Monica G. Bobra, Judy Brewer, Cathryn Carson, Isadora Cruxen, Shachee Doshi, Maximilian Gahntz, Nicholas Garcia, Natalia Luka, Meredith M. Lee, Min Kyung Lee, Woohyeuk Lee, Jarrod Millman, Ricardo Miron Torres, Chinasa T. Okolo, Cailean Osborne, Derek Slater, Katie Steen-James, Nikko Stevens, Jennifer Tridgell, David Gray Widder
AI总结 通过多部门参与式研讨会,研究不同利益相关者如何共同理解与协商AI中的负责任开放性,识别出关于开放目的、范围与运作的四类核心张力,并提出行动路径与研究路线图。
Comments To appear in the 2026 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT '26)
详情
随着政策制定者、研究人员和实践者努力解决基础模型应如何开发和治理以平衡创新、问责和公共利益的问题,关于人工智能中开源和开放性的辩论愈演愈烈。然而,关于不同利益相关者如何集体理解和协商AI中的负责任开放性,特别是通过超越行业主导定义和框架的参与式过程,实证研究仍然有限。本文介绍了一个基于未来思维和参与式设计方法的多部门研讨会的发现。该研讨会共同创造了关于理想未来及AI角色的愿景,以及一套行动路径和一个专注于AI中负责任开源和开放性的研究路线图。本文做出三项关键贡献。首先,它实证记录了共同创造的愿景、行动和研究优先事项。其次,它识别出参与者在将高层次愿望转化为具体行动时出现的四类核心张力,揭示了关于开放目的(作为目的还是手段)、范围(扩展还是有意义访问)以及运作(强制性还是条件性,充分性还是依赖于治理和使用)的相互矛盾的解释。这些张力表明,负责任开放性不是一个单一的技术解决方案,而是一个由价值观、立场和优先事项塑造的协商性社会技术项目。第三,本文通过展示参与式未来方法如何能够揭示超越主流(主要是企业)叙事的多元愿景、行动和研究优先事项,推进了AI治理中的方法论方法,为开放性、权力和问责在实践中如何被协商提供了实证见解。
Debates over open source and openness in artificial intelligence have intensified as policymakers, researchers, and practitioners grapple with how foundation models should be developed and governed to balance innovation, accountability, and public interest. However, there has been limited empirical work examining how diverse stakeholders collectively understand and negotiate responsible openness in AI, particularly through participatory processes that extend beyond industry-led definitions and frameworks. This paper presents findings from a multi-sectoral workshop grounded in futures thinking and participatory design methods. The workshop generated co-created visions of desirable futures and the role of AI, alongside a set of action pathways and a research roadmap focused on responsible open source and openness in AI. This paper makes three key contributions. First, it empirically documents the co-created visions, actions, and research priorities. Second, it identifies four core tensions that emerged as participants translated high-level aspirations into concrete actions, revealing conflicting interpretations of openness regarding its purpose (as an end or a means), its scope (expansion versus meaningful access), and its operation (mandatory versus conditional, sufficient versus dependent on governance and use). These tensions illustrate that responsible openness is not a singular technical solution, but a negotiated sociotechnical project shaped by values, positionalities, and priorities. Third, the paper advances methodological approaches in AI governance by demonstrating how participatory futures methods can surface plural visions, actions, and research priorities that extend beyond dominant, largely corporate, narratives, offering empirical insight into how openness, power, and accountability are negotiated in practice.