The Curious Case of 'Open' in Tech: When Words Lose Their Meaning
The tech industry has a peculiar relationship with the word “open.” Remember when Google’s “Don’t be evil” motto actually meant something? Well, it seems we’re watching a similar semantic drift with “open” in real-time, and frankly, it’s getting a bit tiresome.
The latest buzz surrounds OpenAI potentially making moves toward open-sourcing some of their technology. While this might sound promising, my decades in tech have taught me to approach such announcements with a healthy dose of skepticism. The company that started with a noble mission statement about being open and beneficial to humanity has become somewhat of a poster child for corporate pivot.
Working in DevOps, I’ve witnessed firsthand how the open-source movement has transformed software development. Tools like Linux, Git, and countless others have shown us what genuine openness looks like. It’s not just about releasing code; it’s about fostering community, encouraging collaboration, and maintaining transparency.
The irony isn’t lost on me when I look at my development environment. Every day, I’m using tools that exist because someone, somewhere, decided to share their work with the world. Yet here we are, watching major AI companies play a strange game of hide-and-seek with their technology while wearing “open” as a marketing badge.
Speaking of which, watching various companies’ approaches to AI development feels like observing a peculiar dance. Some, like Ollama, are making genuine efforts to democratize access to AI models, while others seem to be playing a long game of “soon™” with their promises of openness.
Looking at my screen, littered with terminal windows running various open-source tools, I can’t help but think about the fundamental disconnect between what “open” used to mean and what it’s becoming. The tech industry has a habit of co-opting words until they’re practically meaningless. “Cloud” went through it, “AI” is going through it, and now “open” seems to be getting the same treatment.
The environmental scientist in me also wonders about the broader implications. When companies keep their AI developments behind closed doors, we lose the ability to collectively scrutinize and improve their efficiency. In a world where AI’s energy consumption is becoming a serious concern, this lack of transparency feels particularly problematic.
The tech community’s reaction to all this has been fascinating to watch. The skepticism is palpable, and rightfully so. We’ve seen too many instances of companies using open-source as a stepping stone to closed ecosystems. Docker’s journey from community darling to commercial entity serves as a cautionary tale.
The path forward isn’t about demanding that every company open-source everything - that’s unrealistic. But perhaps it’s time we reclaimed the meaning of “open” in tech. When a company brands itself as open, they should be held accountable to what that actually means.
For now, I’ll keep watching this space with interest, but I won’t be holding my breath for any revolutionary changes in corporate behavior. The best we can do is support genuinely open initiatives and maintain pressure on companies to live up to their proclaimed values.
The next time you see a tech company with “open” in their name or mission statement, maybe take a moment to ask: open what, exactly? And more importantly, open for whom?