Re: Volunteers for Chair?

FYI - FWIW - just figured out the archives link:
https://www.w3.org/Search/Mail/Public/advanced_search?resultsperpage=100&sortby=date-asc


On Thu, 8 Aug 2024 at 18:54, Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> It's been reported to me that the group needs to have a chair-person,
> whilst i note, i've seen other groups without one.  I think this is an
> administrative requirement..
>
> There's a bit to update the group about, write a post about..  or perhaps
> a few posts...  but i'd like to step-down as chair, which means there needs
> to be a replacement.
>
> This doesn't mean that I'm unsupportive of efforts to bring about
> technological infrastructure that may reasonably support a variety of, what
> I'd consider to be universal ideals..  Yet, the conclusion that I've come
> to, again, overall is that i' feeling overwhelmingly defeated.
>
> I'm not presently sure how to best articulate, circumstances,
> deliberations, considerations & implications; that are complex, and in some
> areas of most importance, have serious privacy implications; whilst others,
> pertain to confidences, and behaving honourably is important to me.
>
> I started work on what i later called 'human centric' ecosystems, in 2000,
> due to a relatives work on how synaptic nerve-cells work which led him to
> be awarded a nobel prize, i was inspired by that work, alongside other
> factors - and went about designing an ecosystem for online data storage,
> that was based upon people owning their own data, and sharing content by
> links.  There were many facets involved in these first 'crescent network' /
> iBank designs, i was very young, troubled, naive & overall, just starting
> out, after several years in the ICT sector as a young person..  These works
> developed through an initial attempt, that led to an involvement with
> 'video on demand' and even 'streaming games' (soon thereafter); alongside
> wifi, and all sorts of other things; but, to characterise a fundamental
> dispute, there was opposing ideas; whilst i wanted fairness, means to
> empower people, the opposite point of view was to use the opportunity to
> manipulatively aggregate & seek to 'own it all', as a super aggregator...
>  this was a problem, that i've been struggling to ensure that at least
> alternatives exist to, since then.  It appears the consequence of various
> complex issues now leads to a thin-client 'wallet' based model being
> monopolistically deployed, and, i don't understand how to support access to
> justice, means for people to store & be able to use in a court of law, even
> if in poverty, electronic evidence pertaining to their lives to lawful
> remedy, peacefully and in a timely manner; as does in-turn also, impact our
> capacity to support STEM, fair-trading, electronic agreements where both
> parties define terms rather than asymmetrical agreements that may vary
> whenever; and beyond the many complex social implications, there are also
> significant issues pertaining to engineering systems to better support
> human consciousness via our technological infrastructure that's
> increasingly acting as a prosthetic dependency upon life, the lives of
> people, etc.
>
> the outcome is also, that whilst i feel defeated - those who may be
> considered to have 'won', also do so in an ecosystem that poorly supports
> accountability, provenance tracking & personal responsibility.  Whilst
> seemingly good for some to 'make money' or indeed others, to merely get
> more promotions - it seems, such beneficiaries can always claim they've
> always been doing it, and so long as they've got the resources from the
> past wins, it doesn't really matter - whilst seeking to maintain an
> honourable approach, provide means to deliver outcomes where people can own
> the software (licensing, patent-pool considerations, etc) pertaining to
> their own thoughtware - well - that's work that's done in poverty, without
> funding or safety and the outcome of these fundamental requirements means
> that these foundations need to be ownable, by the 'data subject',
> themselves...  their own thoughtware...  their own 'api', defined by them -
> without undue interference or coercion.
>
> means, in-turn, to build the test apparatus needed to better understand
> consciousness..  but how can that be done safely, given the environmentals
> generally..  I really don't know.
>
> Indeed, whether its called 'human centric', which i termed due to needing
> to have a condition in the earlier W3C work to ensure modalities of
> outcomes were broader than 'platform owned' or 'corporation centric' or
> indeed also, government centric - as the intellectual property for natural
> persons, wasn't supported - so, that's why a new term was needed, and i
> thought about it; notes can be found by searching the lists - noting, i've
> just gone to the link, it appears to have changed..  anyhow.  As noted,
> feeling defeated and due also to the code of conduct, I don't think
> discussion about some of the related issues can be discussed - regardless
> of science or reality...
>
> two last notes.
>
> with respect to protecting the human rights & interests of children and
> in-turn also, identity development - which is a term pertaining to
> psychology / social sciences.  I understand efforts are being made to apply
> the wallet to all things internet.  i don't think itll deliver what they
> say it'll fix, but, if that's not the point of doing it - i probably can't
> talk about it anyway.
>
> a straight forward solution is to use RDF on domains or even posts, to
> provide information about whether the content is suitable for children; ie:
> ratings. and then, have a browser plugin or OS tool that looks for these
> files, and then makes decisions based on what it says.  this means ontology
> needs to be done for it, and somme other tooling - fairly straight forward,
> should probably be done by schemaorg | could also be done in a way that
> means it associates to particular posts in a social media system, rather
> than just the high-level domain / URL.
>
> also; there's a bunch of stuff that i don't particularly want to see as an
> adult, therefore, restricting this approach to merely considering the
> interests of children as a child focused outcome; may in-fact, diminish the
> ability for the outcome to do so - for children.   Therefore, i considered
> the notion of terming any such initiative a personalisation solution
> 'myweb', which therein has a particularly attentive focus upon delivering
> outcomes to address the needs of young people.   The outcome would require
> websites to install the file and/or ontological supports, much like
> accessibility projects.
>
> soe notes about it - still poorly drafted (imho)
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1c1Afo-bja_jksBEynHyG7nBDz71TAPOZYkagdoh4e6A/edit
>
>
> AND finally,  I apologise for not having been able to achieve more since i
> instigated the creation of the group.  There has been alot of work in the
> background, i'll go into it at some later stage.  But, should others have a
> belief in the notion called 'human centric' AI, Internet, etc..  then -
> finding someone willing to take on the role of Chair, would be very much
> welcomed and i'll do my best to support it, but that's not delivering
> much atm.  so, I guess, this is an honourable result..
>
> I have managed to obtain the 2nd hand parts to build a workstation that is
> suitable for local LLM related AI work.  I'm hopeful that i'll be able to
> build an environment that'll be good for art, RD&D, etc.
>
> but this is different, to seeking to...  well.  I'm very troubled about
> the implications associated to some of my earlier works and the direction
> the world is going in generally, the implications, etc.  as i'm defeated,
> it appears the higher-level consensus must be, that i'm wrong; otherwise,
> why would the resources go into the stuff thats troubling, rather than
> solutions for tooling to help deliver SDGs and do all the good things -
> unless, the so called 'promoter' of such sorts of solutions, is wrong.
>
> But thankyou for your time.  It's been a difficult ~12 years or so of W3C
> works..  i'll write about my personal deliberations otherwise, somewhere
> else.  I am happy to help any incoming chair learn more about the stuff
> they may not know re: w3c, etc.  where i can help..
>
> I'll write about my view of what i intended re: human centric / human
> centric ai, sometime soon.  but, i do worry, that work with the best of
> intention - can seemingly be perverted - its like, inventing a hammer, then
> seeing it go to market as a new weapon, rather than something that's really
> helpful, when seeking to build homes...  notwithstanding the moral hazard
> with oversimplifications...
>
> 🙏
>
> Timo.
>