Re: Artificial Intelligence and Group Deliberation

Mark,

Its fantastic to have you involved, and i look forward to getting stuck
into the process of better understanding your work, which, imo, appears
remarkable....

will follow-up l8r.  but, fwiw.  ack.

Timothy Holborn.


On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 at 00:51, Mark Lizar <mark@openconsent.com> wrote:

> Greetings HCAI,
>
> It is nice to be apart of this group, thank you Tim for the invitation.
> It is amazing to see this topic, finally break through into a standards
> group, and amazing to see the rapid growth in awareness of this space in
> the last couple of months.  Truly showing the potential of ai for bad or
> for planet saving goodness.
>
>   I believe  digital equality should be inclusive and available to all and
> that this is required so that people can control their own data, where ever
> it may be.  A critical  digital freedom in my opinion,
>
> Which is why I propose a focus on Digital Transparency standard,  that is
>  used to generate notice records and consent notice receipts, for every
> digital processing interaction, through any interaction with notice,
> notifications, disclosures, and even physical signs.
>
> This  implementation approach, is one that proposes that a mirrored record
> of processing activities is generated from a notice (rather than tick box
> policy agreements)  in which people get what is essentially, a receipt.  A
> receipt, which (FYI)  is likely the oldest human form of human writing
> <https://numismatics.org/pocketchange/receipts/>and the first ever form
> of scripting. The receipt solves  for the issue of trust, and implemented
> to capture meta-data includes everyone.  equality in records.
>
> My work has championed consent standards over the last decade as well as
>  the Consent Receipt information structure and technology. This has been
> developed out of research as a social scientist and as  digital identity
> engineer, I champion the consent and notice receipts  @ the Kantara
> Initiative.  Since the volunteer work began in 2013, it has successfully
> been included in ISO/IEC 29184 Online privacy notice and consent standard
> and is the basis for ISO/IEC 27560 - consent record information structure.
> (In progress). Which means it is a means that can implement the solution
> architecture for human centric AI.
>
> To this point, as humans, consent is how we control data, and information
> in context, it is not an out of context tool (for us).   Systems, manage
> permissions, humans manage consent, which means we manage many permissions
> in context, contrary to what tech has us all believing.    Clarity in
> semantics, and the ontologies involved have been the  battle ground for
> these concepts.   As such it is remarkable we do not have our own records
> of digital relationships, so that we can govern our own data and manage
> AI.  We needs these records to start the arms race.
>
> Digital Notice records are, and have been for a long time required, but
> not produced by industry.   We came close in 2015, but, now we have a
> better alternative at the Kantara Initiative ANCR WG
> <https://kantara.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/WA/pages/164823104/ANCR+Digital+iDentity+Transparency+Framework+DT-Levels+of+Assurance> -
> with a human trust framework for making records and receipts that
> supercedes T&C’s.
>
> ANCR - Digital Transparency Framework
> <https://kantara.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/WA/pages/164823104/ANCR+Digital+iDentity+Transparency+Framework+DT-Levels+of+Assurance>,
> which uses an international adequacy and transparency baseline, has
> transparency performance indicator’s
> <https://kantara.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/WA/pages/82542593/Trust+Performance+Indicator+s+TPI+s>,
> which generate PII Controller Credentials
> <https://kantara.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/WA/pages/114098237/Open+Notice+Record+PII+Controller+Credential>(digital
> identity) that defined for public interest and inherently enable privacy
> Ai.
>
> Imagine what we could do if we had our own records, and that every data
> processing activity produced a receipt which was added to these records.
> We wouldn’t need to ask for our data to be deleted anymore, we could do
> that with multiple providers, in context with the click of one button.  We
> would have personalized digital privacy policies, not privacy policies for
> contracts (T&C’s)
>
> With a consent based authorization protocol, (like AuthC
> <https://kantara.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/WA/pages/38174721/AuthC+Protocol>)
> we wouldn’t need logins for every service either.  We could use verified
> credentials validated by regulated 3rd party governing authorities,
>
>  For high assurance active privacy state monitoring, using our own records
> would help scale trust online (the main use of privacy ai),   Every
> interaction we have with any AI would then feeds our own, private ai, our
> personal micro-data, and our more intelligent data could then be
> pernissioned according to a common set of rules, (digital privacy Magna
> Carta) and together we could become a smart species. (Thats the vision
> anyway)
>
> Which is why I urge a starting point in which a Digital Privacy AI is
> implemented as a Co-Regulatory framework, so that we can stop making
> everyone fill out there personal information for every service everywhere.
> To start a network protocol where processing of personal data requires a
> Controller credential so there are no unknown 3rd parties. Then we control
> our own data sources.   This promising approach to regulate AI, also
> addresses mis-information at scale, and provide the foundation framework to
> govern  future tech, like quantum and government AI’s.
>
> This year in 2023, we finally have the laws, standards, and with the Jan 4
> decision pro-consent against Meta, the legal precedence to implement global
> market strength digital transparency, digital rights and data control,
>
> Nice to meet you all,
>
> Mark Lizar
>
> PS -  I have  a W3C Do Track - Digital Consent Use Case for Private AI, if
> anyone is interested?  The idea is to cut out the commercial intermediaries
> like  google and Facebook, but with our own Privacy AI.  An AI that uses
> interactional privacy law to leverage  the data we have in these services,
> for our own empowering services. (Independent of big tech)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Apr 8, 2023, at 9:23 AM, 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
>
>
>