Re: Artificial Intelligence and Group Deliberation

Hi Adam,

Hi all otherwise also...

SO, believe it or not - I can write short-emails.!!  I'm just not doing
that, atm.  apologies.  I guess, it relates to my attempts to do my best to
help foster the group's establishment...

TL;DR version is - I think safety protocols are amongst the higher
priorities, but the context and ensuring group members have
common-knowledge, to support common-sense making, should be done first;
after, the cg stuff is set-up...

FWIW - Here's an initial draft call to action that I've moreover produced
with my web-civics hat on...

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sQCIjPlKySqj4Dza5wWMzEFpCft2OaqJahC4XO6V9WA/edit#heading=h.6sx4a2kx80sc

As with most of my work, it's always a work in progress...

I really do want to encourage people to think about what and how they want
technology, which incorporates AI - as designs have assumed for a very long
time,

https://twitter.com/DameWendyDBE/status/1172470883610431489

What it should mean - for them, for their loved ones; for their society,
culture, etc.

How could it work? What are the sorts of characteristics and considerations
that people have about what it is....  and what it is not.  FWIW, some of
my diagrams are on medium[1] and I made a copy of some of them into my
sense docs repo[2].

The w3c cg works to improve means to ensure those potential futures are
possible, don't need to be mandated upon all people, in-order to
substantiate the benefits associated to creating support for it, and
there's going to be systems that it won't be compatible with; in some
ways...

Therein / thereafter, i'm a bit vexed about whether to respond with more of
my work, which kinda - doesn't necessarily help people illustrate their own
views, without awareness of prior works; equally, it might be helpful to do
so.  so on balance...

There's an array of 'my data' solutions shown:
https://apply.mydata.org/gallery  | and i'd also alert people to some old
rww/crosscloud/solid works:
https://web.archive.org/web/20170609151946/http://crosscloud.org/

The Solid CG is: https://www.w3.org/community/solid/

More broadly otherwise;
I don't see how 'Human Centric AI' can become some applied mandatory
standard, and I don't think the outcome would be good if it does.  Whilst
W3C IG & WG processes have historically changed the shape of things; at
least, imho.  IMO there's a few different 'mindware' / 'thoughtware'
operating systems, much like different flavours of linux, alongside unix /
OSX, mobile operating systems, windows / microsoft infrastructure, etc...
there doesn't need to be one ideology or one language, that seeks to make
all others - redundant and/or, encumbered with 'lock-ins', etc..

IMO: the existing systems, that have names like 'self sovereign' or SSI,
and 'people centered internet' (although i'm still not entirely sure of the
specifics there); and 'web3'/'web5', etc...  alongside clouds like azure,
amazon, google ecosystems...  The way i see it, is that the outcomes of the
credentials / DID works, have led to a particular sort of 'self sovereign'
solution, where consumers have wallets, for their 'identity'...  therein -
whilst i may not be exact, the shared ideologies have formed a coherent
implementation, particular characteristics, etc.  like a form of cultural
expression, in a way...

So, rather than 'self-sovereign', the language I use is more about
'self-hood', enabling 'person-hood', which then forms a sort of inforg,
that supports interpersonal relations within legal-spheres, socio-spheres,
bio-spheres, etc...  so, the result is a structure that's a bit different
to defining one's identity with a wallet app...

Some of my old docs are in this[3] folder.

Yet, whilst there are many of these sorts of - solutions / components, and
i've not exhaustively illustrated them; nor the broader implications re:
IoT, AR/VR/MR and the many other areas,

There will need to be interoperability.   I am also particularly interested
in addressing 'social attack vectors'[4] with safety protocols[5] - noting,
these documents were produced for the purpose of my own project, and
they've not been updated to support the re-purposing requirements; and,
have otherwise been noted in the justice systems doc, which has a few more
element in it.

I think one of the biggest requirements from a w3c perspective, is ensuring
that there's an ability for people to migrate between systems, an
import/export function.  I also think that it is likely that there will be
alot of ontology work to do; and it's likely also that there will end-up
being a bunch of logos, much as there is for semantic web, html5, etc...
that denote particular meanings.

unicode has done the UDHR in XML https://github.com/unicode-org/udhr in
many languages, but I've been working on a broader idea of 'values
credentials', which is broader, and somewhat different.  overall however, i
am firstly interested in hearing about the different considerations others
have, whether it be about applied ethics[6] / values related stuff,
ensuring declarative choices can be made in a manner that is supported by
law, or maybe its gov/defence/cyber related[7] or international,
economics[9], data science[10], any of the many other related things[11]

Yet, I think it's also vital to spend the time to ensure that we're able to
get everyone together, and that we're able to ensure that we can build upon
a foundational common-sense, and at the moment, I'm not sure where people
are at - do they know about solid?  are they aware of the thesis on LDP for
Web Apps[12] or Data Ownership and Interoperability for a Decentralized
Social Semantic Web[13], HTTPA: Enabling Appropriate Use of Information on
the Web[14], Framework for Policy Aware Reuse of Content on the WWW[15] or
the old work on a policy aware web[16] or the initial My Data paper
"a framework, principles, and a model for a human-centric approach to the
managing and processing of personal information."  The MyData approach aims
at strengthening digital human rights while opening new opportunities for
busi- nesses to develop innovative personal data based services built on
mutual trust. – A Nordic Model for human-centered personal data management
and processing"[17].  as well as SolidVC - A Decentralized Framework for
Verifiable Credentials on the Web[18] and, so many more examples...

But even with the knowledge of how to implement it, in a particular way,
forming a different type of AI ecosystem - after years of work, if we don't
figure out how to ensure people can leave ecosystems, then I think - it
would be dishonourable to do so...  at least, imo.  I also see an array of
clearly urgent issues that relate - but, in my consideration, are best
progressed via w3c, which always starts with a cg...

My implementation, webizen, is intended to be particular. Yet, the purpose
of my works have always been about human rights, in-effect..  which has
been a very difficult journey that has led me to have had some remarkable
experiences, and so far, I'm still here..  although, that's not universally
the case otherwise.

I have a presentation early Monday morning on "Technology, AI & the
preservation of Freedom of Thought". I am hopeful this will in-turn result
in improving both my resources to support this group's activities, as well
as getting myself centered; noting, that the implications of my experiences
over the past few weeks, has been a bit overwhelming.  I am absolutely
passionate and entirely committed to seeking to deliver - good - outcomes...

and just - doing my bit.  in-order to deliver meaningful outcomes for
billions of people around the world, it'll take alot of hands-on-deck....
but also, after so many years, i do find the 'status quo' upsetting..  but
given so much has gone into it, it must be fit for purpose for some people,
for different cultural reasons or however / whatever, it may be that has
led to the characteristics of what has matured and become distributed on a
wide-spread basis, as a consequence of the focused efforts over years, that
it took to do - alongside all the people and resources, etc.

So many possible futures after so many years, where some things are now
very much delivered.

But my view, my motivations, leave me considering the absence of so much;
as to support the basic human rights of people, unto law.... i think its
hard to really get a grasp of how much doesn't exist, until after the
use-cases are studied in detail - noting, that if solutions exist - great,
lets use them, if they're fit-for-purpose... but, that's not entirely the
circumstance that led me to act to propose this group, etc...

FWIW: a bit of housekeeping.

I have historically been working on this stuff, for a very long time - with
some remarkable people.....  quite the journey.  in so doing, via
web-civics, which is my thing - that i hope grows, to better support
building tech for the public good, empowering others to do so - without
'web' / 'digital' slavery', but in that work - i have the humancentricai.org
domain, and related social infrastructure, some of which has been set-up
for many years; and as such, whilst i've been working to empower people and
groups overtime, there's clearly a need to ensure support for the w3c
related works, separately - noting - that whilst the governance systems are
an area that i have spent alot of time investigating, thereby experimenting
with: https://youtu.be/z1ROpIKZe-c which in-turn relates to the concept of
a corporation being a body of people (which is different to corporate
personhood, or indeed providing legal personhood to software, whether it be
DLTs or AI, etc.); therein, as i'm defining things on the basis that it
should be defined in such a way that is decoupled from me - i've asked the
w3c rep about the domain, and that conversation led me to register
humancentricai.xyz - which is thereby intended to support
www.cg.humancentricai.xyz, etc...

In past w3c projects, I've noticed how earlier works end-up getting lost in
history; alongside the knowledge of who was initially involved, what
sacrifices they made to start the work, and what happened to them
afterwards, as things 'go global' / get commercialised....  so, I'm going
to be making an attempt to try to ensure support for provenance. Whilst the
easy to use temporal[19] representations of subjects, are now far less
sophisticated than the future spatio-temporal, graph/vector, streamable
data-structures that i envisage will in-future support AI agents that
support personal ontology, alongside 'permissive commons', or moreover,
advancements in relation to the social-web vision as we migrate into this
area of web-science and philosophical engineering[20], that wendy hall was
convinced was a decade away, at least that's how she responded in passing
at www2017...

overall - point is - got a domain, i'll set-up the github location soon, it
would also be good to learn about what tools people are comfortable with
using - there is a wiki and all such things in the w3c cg environment...
I'd like to encourage diversity, and multi-modalities of contributory
engagement & support, in connection to the production of useful works, to
aid with the particular projects that we end-up identifying and deciding,
as a group, that we seek to go get whatever those things are, done.  I also
think that there's going to be some topics that are about serious crimes
that may not be appropriate public discussions; as such, the first agenda
when we get to that point, is likely to have a number of topics on it for
discussion.

Overall; I think this time around, getting stuck into the safety protocols
is, imho, amongst the highest of priorities - as to ensure against
unintended consequences; but that's just my view.

I am looking forward to hearing about what's important to all others
involved.

Hope this helps,

Timothy Holborn.


*LINKS:*
[1]
https://medium.com/webcivics/inforgs-the-collective-info-sphere-67a660516cfd

[2] https://github.com/WebizenAI/sensedocs/tree/main/Attachments
[3] https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1lV-Ruj9Gehwvs7B3wDLd6fmKIIvCmOqt

[4]
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-On7xNuMAGd6xspVVkwkF7vH06ilJ0Lp791OiX19aog/edit?usp=sharing

[5]
https://docs.google.com/document/d/186_il9nztBjXB1_TcuwlkQe7sqZC1_fCKqunip8ry7c/edit?usp=sharing

[6] https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1uwGax8GvZA2jzJ_UFIoYppijZX4vDsoL

[7] https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1RzE_QQbBRyE0druVpvffQoT5KDms_5mT
[8] https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1xqoRFwX-kNcpWJiSJCEvO-uLBSt1m7Bj
[9] https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1xSQj0XHzJN9hR5KZbnXapyCTyPBs2WCf
[10]
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/18kpYSPz4yQMMn0IOfaPT7JyYD1wXEGMn
[11]
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1tYFIggw8MIY5fD2u-nbwFRM6wqrhdmQZ
[12]
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VGEUYlJIe9jrM-sbD7cB2VbqAzrbiTjC/view?usp=sharing
[13]
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BXNIh_f4xj5rT8mgRXECiZd2UHa9ee6c/view?usp=sharing
[14]
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-zLsyUnGH_IBWRXib_-c-pgtPcxBj_Gu/view?usp=sharing
[15]
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MP28vgfWrKK8KvZ8YbeV6-fWHGyj70VM/view?usp=sharing
[16]
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/10relAex2nRjP6tnVz2VWGxfe-PM8t8ZV
[17]
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kBS6l1dsYnCSctwzuaXbsEmKP9TDj--X/view?usp=sharing
[18]
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZmEd9rd73m3sUYlXcPmu6cgjaL3VVNnM/view?usp=sharing
[19]
https://cdn.knightlab.com/libs/timeline3/latest/embed/index.html?source=1WXgSplqAB62oMSdwqli_1G3k37c0y6fZkZJLzc5Www8&font=OldStandard&lang=en&hash_bookmark=true&initial_zoom=4&height=650#event-steve-jobs-downplays-computer-privacy
[20] https://www.w3.org/2007/09/map/main.jpg


On Sat, 8 Apr 2023 at 23:23, Adam Sobieski <adamsobieski@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Mark,
>
> Thank you for the useful hyperlink about differentiable technological
> development.
>
> I see your points about personalization, preferences, and configurability. It
> seems that we can envision something like a configurable *advanced
> Grammarly* which would be equally available to all participants,
> councilmembers, representatives, legislators, and Congresspeople. Perhaps
> the composition-related functionalities in Web browsers' AI-enhanced
> sidebars may evolve into something similar.
>
> When I consider lawyers in courtrooms and participants in group
> deliberations (e.g., legislators) what comes to my mind, in this particular
> discussion, is that I hope that they are all, or that their staffs are all,
> equally technologically proficient. Imagine a courtroom where one party’s
> lawyer had a laptop connected to a suite of advanced tools via Wi-Fi
> Internet while the other lawyer had a briefcase with a stack of papers.
>
> Judicial and legislative systems seem to be more intuitively fair when all
> of the participants are equally proficient and equally equipped with
> preparation-related and performance-related tools. There could even be
> "arms race" scenarios in terms of speechwriting assistants, debate coaches,
> and other preparation-enhancing and performance-enhancing tools.
>
> Arguments for *advanced forum software* (e.g., features delivered via
> plugins for social media software) include, but are not limited to, that:
>
>
>    1. Some of these tools should obtain and process discussion contexts
>    to provide better composition-related advice to each user.
>       1. However, per-user tools like *advanced Grammarly* or *Web
>       browser sidebar composition tool* could, in theory, scrape the
>       entireties of discussion threads, from webpages, up to the posts being
>       authored (perhaps utilizing HTML5 document metadata, Web schema, or linked
>       data) to deliver better advice requiring discussion contexts.
>       2. Some of the tools under discussion are useful for evaluating the
>    posts of other users or evaluating combinations of posts from multiple
>    users, entire threads, as they unfold.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Adam
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Mark Hampton <mark.hampton@ieee.org>
> *Sent:* Saturday, April 8, 2023 7:14 AM
> *To:* Adam Sobieski <adamsobieski@hotmail.com>
> *Cc:* public-humancentricai@w3.org <public-humancentricai@w3.org>
> *Subject:* Re: Artificial Intelligence and Group Deliberation
>
> Hi Adam,
>
> I imagine those tools would need to be personalized (I'd prefer owned by
> the user), one person's propaganda is another's preference. There would be
> broader dynamics that could be spotted through collaboration of those
> personalized systems sharing information or using shared sources of
> information.
>
> There is an almost certain risk of information overload and that seems to
> make people more manipulable. If human centric means caring for humans then
> I think we need to be careful. Human centric AI could become a way of
> accelerating AI rather than caring for humans - I would really like to see
> human centric AI leading to
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_technological_development
> rather than mitigations for inhuman technologies.
>
> The current direction of technological progress does not seem very human
> centric at all. The work to build technical solutions to problems
> introduced by technology seems to be a symptom of this. I don't see any
> current very important short/medium term human material problems that need
> AI but I'm open to being convinced otherwise. Technologists (and I speak as
> one) risk to have a hard time accepting they are part of the problem rather
> than the solution.
>
> An off the cuff reaction but I hope it is of some use to you.
>
> Kind regards,
>   Mark
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 8, 2023 at 12:57 AM Adam Sobieski <adamsobieski@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Human-centric AI Community Group,
>
> Something that Timothy Holborn said in a recent letter to this mailing
> list reminded me of some thoughts that I had about AI a few years ago. At
> that time, I was considering uses of AI technology for supporting
> city-scale e-democracies and e-townhalls. I collated a preliminary
> non-exhaustive list of tasks that AI could perform to enhance public
> discussion forums:
>
>    1. Performing fact-checking
>    2. Performing argument analysis
>    3. Detecting spin, persuasion, and manipulation
>    4. Performing sentiment analysis
>    5. Detecting frame building and frame setting
>    6. Detecting agenda building and agenda setting
>    7. Detecting various sociolinguistic, social semiotic, sociocultural
>    and memetic events
>    8. Detecting the dynamics of the attention of individuals, groups and
>    the public
>    9. Detecting occurrences of cognitive biases in individual and group
>    decision-making processes
>
> With respect to point 3, a worry is that some participants in a community
> might make use of AI tools to amplify the rhetoric used to convey their
> points of view. These were concerns about technologies like: "virtual
> speechwriting assistant" and "virtual debate coach".
>
> Some participants of an e-townhall or social media forum might make use of
> AI tools to spin, to persuade, to manipulate the other members for their
> own reasons or interests or might do so on behalf of other parties who
> would pay them.
>
> My thoughts were that technologies could mitigate these technological
> concerns. Technologies could monitor large-scale group discussions, on
> behalf of the participants, while serving as tools available to all of the
> participants. For example, AI could warn content posters before they posted
> contentious content (contentious per their agreed-upon rules) and
> subsequently place visible icons on contentious posts, e.g., content
> detected to contain spin, persuasion, or manipulation.
>
> I was brainstorming about solutions where AI systems could enhance group
> deliberation, could serve all of the participants simultaneously and in an
> open and transparent manner, and could ensure that reason prevailed from
> group discussions and deliberations. Today, with tools like GPT-4, some
> of these thoughts about humans and AI systems interoperating in public
> forums, e-townhall forums and social media, seem to be once again relevant.
> Any thoughts on these topics?
>
>
> Best regards,
> Adam Sobieski
>
>