Artificial Minds & Webizen Design

Hi all,

(i've cc'd 'science of consciousness' group - as an FYI of sorts, they're
assistance - as a group, significantly contributed towards my modern-day
analysis of what became an options analysis).

Whilst the method may be considered 'foolish', i've always been dedicated
to 'freedom of mind', natural justice, etc.  as such; there's always been a
false dichotomy[1] between 'freedom of mind' & peace infrastructure; vs.
the commercial desires of entities whom seek to be rulers[2] without
accountability rule us, without accountability[3]; whilst much has happened
over the last ~decade, the RWW or CrossCloud[4] or 'SoLiD' concepts; now
appear to 'out moded', much like the era of mainframes vs. desktop
computing[5][6][7] that eventually led to NeXt[8] & the advent of
WWW[9]...

The vast majority of humanity, may not comprehend the difference between
'the web' and 'the internet'[10]; but at least, we're still at a time where
its part of our 'living history', regardless of engendered means for
people, humanity, to become confused & the (energy) cost linked with good &
proper resolution...  We have timeline tools that have been made[11], but
they're not easily used, too often; which, in terms of cognitive AI -
appears to me to be a significant barrier of importance for humanity to
resolve, in the interests of humanity and indeed therein also; human
rights[2].

These seemingly existential problems have worried me greatly.  The idea
that people can have agency in relation to the records produced in relation
to their lives, to at least - support the human rights of their children or
indeed themselves also - to support #RealityCheckTech - in-effect, 'out of
scope'.

The problems related to these decisions - made by many - are enormously
significant. So, as i've been puzzling the problem - with an interest to
produce 'peace infrastructure' foundations; with respect to cognative AI
and the considerations illustrated to me by Dave Raggett in particular,
about 'artificial minds' the lens, of seeking to produce an
artiface extension to self, like a prosthetic (i have a prosthetic eye
since i was a baby, due to the science of the day - ~43 years ago); it
doesn't appears as though that's a safe thing to support - it appears, that
there is overwhelming support for - digital slavery...

This has troubled me greatly.

So, what i've come-up with as a solution - a way, to support the growth of
CogAIs most important work to produce open-standards re: AI - is to think
about how we can produce 'robots' that people own, as property.  Property
law, is fairly well understood; whilst we may not be able to 'own our own
minds' via 'web3'; we are able to own property, and if we own our own
robots - they'll need to have access (therefore storage) of the data about
us; in-order to be useful for us; which is kinda like, democratising AI in
a way that's not unlike how the work of Jobs[5][6][7][8] worked to
democratise computing...

In consideration - my thinking - is to call these future 'ai robots' owned
by humans; 'webizen'[12], which has some history to it as a name, intended
to support a dignity enhancing outcome for those involved.

Thereafter; i've started to create a list of different 'well known' 'robots
(cognative AI in film/tv, etc.)[13]; which is intended to be a means to
communicate - the difference between the sorts of things we're looking to
create tools like CogAi to produce solutions that humanity wants (as
'webizen'); vs the alternatives, that humanity doesn't want; and thereby,
assist in our design efforts, to figure out how to address the complex
problems.

however; this does in-turn, illustrate an 'intended' outcome; where,
there's a difference between 'putting yourself in the metaverse'[14] vs.
this concept of looking at it differently; that natural persons, can own
their own robots - who can in-turn, fight the good fight on their behalf,
to keep them safe in a world operated via cyber-infrastructure; a world,
where the characteristics of 'robots' (software in a 'thing'); are
different to those of humans, and many humans - do not have sufficient
'representation' to support human dignity or other values[15] as a
consequence of the design priorities, of those, who've done it.

anyone, suggested to have 'mental illness' issues or wahtever may be used
to dismiss their complains; should be able to 'own their own robots' (like
owning their own compute (rather than 'thin clients'); that can in-turn
engage people who seek to harm them - via law - to protect, human dignity.

Whilst i am quite sure, people will want to make different kinds of
robots[13]; it would be good to work on producing a better chart of all the
different ones that exist, which can be referred to for lay-people; so
that, those who are expected to make decisions (ie: politicians, etc.); are
able to know what sort of 'active artificial mind' they're support is
expected to help bring about, and the characteristics of that 'thing' - in
connection to the implications that will be in-turn, brought to have an
impact upon its 'data subjects'[16]; noting, of course - the concept, isn't
about making corrupt systems / processors / agents; but that, there's alot
to draw from historical creative works, to 'think' about how they might
work.

The consequence of this approach - amongst other 'things'; is that, we
don't need to triage how the human mind works; rather, we need to focus on
how to build 'artificial minds' that aid humanity...

IMO:  'art', as is the produce of work by human minds has an inextricable
link, to character, to values; and i've started to edit my earlier 'values'
slidepack (which was still a draft) to redirect the concept to this idea
about producing 'robots' that people can own as property - and the values
factors involved[17]; but as much as i am concerned about the ramifications
of seeking to do good via open-standards work, only to see / experience,
horrible outcomes / experiences; these 'things' will need to be
interoperable; so,

By all means, let me know if the concept is rejected - certainly also,
learning why would be useful.

i do hope, as is my intent, that the work on 'artificial minds' is enhanced
as a consequence of the creative / work - that i've done; to figure out a
potential solution, that i am unaware existed before.

afaik; 'solid' or whatever its called + tooling; may be able to operate, on
a mobile phone - or similar, something that a person owns as property; as
to, in-directly, have some sense of 'human agency' in our cyber-realm.  the
list of 'different robots' (ai) that have been illustrated; range from
types that we are not intended to be defined as 'webizen', through to
others; that are intended to be supported - via work - to deserve the
intended "re-defined" meaning - of that name...

The spreadsheet[13] is open / able to be edited (similar to the tools
sheet[18]); the format, is designed to support
https://timeline.knightlab.com/ - although, this is early stage work; and
as always, done without any kind of funding whatsoever other than my
commitment to do work, considered important for the future of humanity; at
a minimum, people should be provided an opportunity - to have choices; and
as noted earlier[19]

“the distinction between reality and our knowledge of reality, between
reality and information, cannot be made” Anton Zeilinger[20]

Cheers,

Timothy Holborn.

Links:
[1] https://miro.medium.com/max/4800/1*5KzkYHRy0B_OKP3aagsqhg.png
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRGhrYmUjU4
[3] http://dig.csail.mit.edu/2010/Papers/IAB-privacy/httpa.pdf
[4] https://web.archive.org/web/20220000000000*/http://crosscloud.org/
[5] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtvjbmoDx-I
[6] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2B-XwPjn9YY
[7] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sMBhDv4sik
[8] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92NNyd3m79I
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92NNyd3m79I>
[9]
https://worldwideweb.cern.ch/browser/#http://info.cern.ch/hypertext/WWW/People.html

[10] https://twitter.com/w3c/status/1105453516154433536
[11] https://timeline.knightlab.com/
[12]
https://docs.google.com/document/d/11PowzV6lLZG1MbV5cVJiSRLNLiBKvNLB42pIw3OuURo/edit?usp=sharing

[13]
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rqYC2E2BDIHBADAT7-9CabawkmYBJpBBf1KJO24D7ig/edit?usp=sharing

[14]
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/153mjj1yhDzS5_idCZOQtmg9BThu37zfW
[15]
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1QWh8r2rkjrDHjjimKAGGHA-es6d__MQfoQuFV29XEiw/edit?usp=sharing

[16] https://www.w3.org/TR/vc-data-model/#credential-subject-0
[17]
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1CpGf5S8JBQzCug7QzKDS4wzJdsSEFaRI1j3RunH5v10/edit?usp=sharing

[18]
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/19IEgvdvwl_EOGhmIFinVQu4OerRojeje8PaZWGvoO4Q/edit#gid=0

[19]
https://www.webizen.net.au/about/executive-summary/preserving-the-freedom-to-think/

[20] https://www.nature.com/articles/438743a