
Soon MPAI will be five
Abstract
In five years, MPAI – Moving Picture, Audio, and Data Coding by Artificial Intelligence, the international, unaffiliated, not-for-profit association developing standards for AI-based data coding – has been carrying out its mission, making its results widely known and its status recognised. However, not all are clear why MPAI was established, which are its distinctive features, and why it stands out among the organisations developing standards.
This is the first of a series of articles that will revisit the driving force that allowed MPAI to develop 15 standards in a variety of fields where AI can make the difference and have half a score under development. The articles will pave the way for the next five years of MPAI.
1 Standards have a divine nature
MPAI was established as a Swiss not-for-profit organisation on 30 September 2020 with the mission of developing data coding standards based on Artificial Intelligence. The first element that has driven MPAI into existence is the very word STANDARD. If you ask people “what is a standard?” you are likely to obtain a wide range of responses. The simplest, most effective, and although rather obscure answer is instead “a tool that connects minds”. A standard establishes a paradigm that allows a mind to interpret what another mind expresses in words or by other means of communication.
The easiest example of standard is language itself. A language assigns labels – words – to physical and intellectual objects. Apparently, the language-defined labels are what make humans different from animals, even though there are innumerable forms of language used by animals that are less rich than the human one.
Words have a divine nature. So, it is no surprise that St. John’s Gospel starts with the sentence “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word”.
Is this divine nature only applicable to language? Well, no. If we say that 20 mm of rain fell in 4 hours, we are using the language to convey information about rain that would be void of a quantitative value if there was not a standard for length called meter and a standard for time called hour.
Next to these lofty goals, standards have other practical purposes, A technical standard enacted by a country may be used as a tool to limit and sometimes even outlaw products not conforming to that standard, in that country. The existence of standards used for this purpose was the main driver toward the establishment of the Moving Picture Experts Group (MPEG): a single digital video standard that eventually uprooted scores of analogue television standards, with myriads of sub-standards. The intention was to nullify this malignant use of standards.
The goal of MPEG was to serve humans by enabling them to hear and see, thanks to machines that were able to “understand” the bits generated by other machines. In other words, it was necessary that machines be made able to understand the “words” of other machines.
Come 2020, Artificial Intelligence was not yet in the headlines, but the direction was clear. AI systems would be endowed with more and more “intelligence”, communicate between each other, and let humans communicate with them. What forms the “word” would take were not clear, but that the forms would be manifold was.
While MPEG had ushered in a new spirit in standardisation, it had also fostered a transformation in the way the need for standards would take shape and how standards would be exploited. In the early MPEG days, most industries still had research laboratories where the advancement of technology was monitored and fostered with a view of exploiting technology for new products and services. New findings would be patented and new patent-based products launched. The market would bless the winner among different products doing more or less the same thing with different technologies.
MPEG rendered useless the costly step of battling on patents in the market bringing to the standards committee a battle on standards. As a patent in a successful standard was highly remunerative, it did not take much time for the industry to invest in any patentable research. By industry, we intend “any” industry, actually not even industries that had a business in products and services. The idea was that a day would come that a patent would be needed in “a” standard. That single patent would repay the tens-hundreds-thousands of unused patents.
This was significant progress in terms of optimising efforts to generate innovation, and letting more actors join the fray. That progress, however, came at a cost, the disconnect of exploitation from generating innovation. An industry that had made an innovation to achieve an investment had every interest to see that innovation deployed. A company that has a portfolio of 10,000 patents may decide not to license a patent (in practice, by dragging its feet in releasing a patent) if that helps it license a more remunerative patent instead.
Certainly, this epochal evolution has resulted in a more efficient generation of innovation but is actually hindering exploitation of valuable innovations.
2 Inside MPAI
MPAI has been established to uphold the social value of standards, to adapt the notion of standard to the new Artificial Intelligence domain, and to rescue the right of society to exploit innovation. Let’s review how this has been implemented.
Laws pay much attention to standards because the patents that enable them give monopoly rights to exploit the patents to holders for a significant time span. This is the reason why a standards body requests that a proposal of a standard be accompanied by a declaration that, in simplified form, boils down to answering one of the three possibilities: if there are patent rights to the enabling technologies, does the submitter agree to allow the use of the patents for free, or are royalties applied, or is the use of patents not allowed? Setting aside the 1st and 3rd cases, in the second case the submitter is asked to declare that it will license the patents “to an unrestricted number of applicants on a worldwide, non-discriminatory basis and on reasonable terms and conditions to make, use and sell implementations of the above document” (i.e., the standard).
In past ages this used to be good enough, but is this still OK in an age when technology moves fast? Is it OK if it takes ten years for the declaration to be implemented and if, ten years later, a user discovers that the licensing terns are not acceptable?
A reasonable answer is that, no, this handling of patents in standards is not acceptable because society is deprived of technologies that may bring significant benefits to it. It may also not be acceptable to some patent holders because they are deprived of their ability to monetise the fruits of their efforts.
The MPAI handling of patents is exactly the opposite on this point. MPAI Members engaged in the development of a standard agree on a set of statements called “Framework Licence” that remove some uncertainty on the time and terms of the eventual licence.
Why only “some” and not all uncertainty? Because there are so-called antitrust laws that forbid this full clarification as this could be maliciously used to distort the market. As Monsieur de Montesquieu used to say: “Better is the enemy of good”, MPAI wants to make things that are good and not perfect things that create problems.
MPAI has developed a model process to develop standards which is based on a combination of openness – when the purpose of a standard is developed – and restriction – when the technologies making up the standard are developed. Figure 1 depicts the eight steps of a standard.
Figure 1 – The MPAI standard life cycle
A standard may be proposed by anybody (Stage 0). To define the scope of the standard, use cases are developed (Stage 1). To define what the standard should exactly do, Functional Requirements are developed (Stage 2). Participation in these stages is open to anybody.
To define the conditions of use of the standard, Commercial Requirements are developed (Stage 3). Of course, MPAI is not engaged in any sort of commerce. “Commercial Requirements” are what above have been called Framework Licence. When the two types of requirements are ready, a Call for Technologies is issued (Stage 4).
Anybody can answer the call (Stage 5), but submitted technologies must satisfy the requirements. Proposed technologies are used to develop the exclusive standard with the participation of MPAI Members and the respondents to the call if they have joined MPAI. If they do not, their submission is discarded.
When the standard has reached a stability plateau, MPAI may publish the current draft before final publication (Stage 6). Anybody is entitled to send their comments to the MPAI Secretariat. Comments will be considered for inclusion in the published standard (Stage 7).
Stage 7 is divided in four Steps. The first Step concerns the publication of the standard, but a standard usually includes other Steps. Step #2 is the reference software, a conforming implementation of the standard that is included in the standard itself with reference to the MPAI Git from where the software – published with a BSD 3 Clause licence – can be downloaded. The third Step is Conformance Testing. An implementation of an AI Workflow conforms with MPAI-MMC if it accepts as input and produces as output Data and/or Data Objects (the combination of Data of a Data Type and its Qualifier) conforming with those specified by MPAI-MMC (see later for more about Qualifiers).
The last Step is Performance Assessment. Performance is a multidimensional entity because it can have various connotations, and the Performance Assessment Specification should provide methods to measure how well an AIW performs its function, using a metric that depends on the nature of the function, such as:
- Quality: the Performance of an AI System that Answers Questions can measure how well it answers a question related to an image.
- Bias: Performance of the same AI System can measure the quality of responses depending on the type of images, i.e., the ability of the System to provide balanced unbiased answers.
- Legalcompliance: the Performance of an AIW can measure the compliance of the AI System to a regulation, e.g., the European AI Act.
- Ethicalcompliance: the Performance Assessment of an AI System can measure its compliance to a target ethical standard.