Re: Human-Centric vs. Altman-Centric AI

Hi Michael & others on the list...

Whilst I personally despair the direction wide-scale AI developments have
taken, and the various related implications; I think it's important for
various reasons to ensure language does not target people[1], but rather
problems.  Further, if one 'looks under the hood', I suspect findings
would show MS more influential[2][3].   This week, there's been some fairly
significant UN meetings, based on what now exists.

not what could have, should have or might have been made, but was neither
available to try, nor were the marketing materials available for decision
makers to consider...

Within this complex scope of so called 'competition', there are also
competing applied definitions to the notion of 'human centric', and as a
W3C CG is a community space - i sought input to better understand what the
meaning of the nomenclature was now to people[4], notwithstanding my own
strong views[5]...

FWIW: there's a call for submissions re: https://www2025.thewebconf.org/
which can be found on that site.

A Quick update otherwise; noting, its not specifically 'w3c work', rather,
just letting people know - perhaps something will fall out of it, that
ends-up needing w3c processes or would become better, if that occurred...

I think my work is fairly slow-going atm..  nonetheless.  The work on
defining different types of 'agents' or artificial minds, is a continuing
topic.  This sheet has some old notes[6] but I haven't really updated it.
I'm still working through the process of defining what I call 'webizen',
which I don't think should be anthropomorphised..  Therein, considerations
about defining them AS ROBOTS, or FOAF:AGENT:SOFTWARE (not legal person)
and thinking about how to create 'cartridges', for lack of a better term
now; where they may be loaded / unloaded, called for specific purposes, and
in-turn how to define them..  Part of these considerations are about the
psychological aspects, whilst the other part is about the geek processes.

I've not historically been focused on LLMs, as my view was that the
foundations needed to be done first, then linked to LLMs; but as noted,
I've got the hardware to do the RD&D, nonetheless, it's only been a few
months...  I've updated the 'tools' sheet, with some LLM related
resources[7], there's some other notes - particularly about GPU hardware in
this sheets doc[8] and both need updating - whilst i've also been thinking
about how to define a schema & ideally also, enable decentralised discovery
/ updates..

I've got 'models' running locally, and have then got them working on my
other devices over TailScale[9]  which has then led to investigation about
replacing the 'default assistant app' on my phone, finding:
https://github.com/AndraxDev/speak-gpt/  but i haven't got HTTPS working
yet.  Currently investigating LocalAI[10][11] which is written in go, and
i'm hopeful, might make it feasible for me - to integrate with the older
WebizenAI[12] work, that used the old RWW[13] libraries, whilst also
exploring spatio-temporal supports, as noted earlier[14]. Earlier work,
considered the use of WebID-TLS / WebID-RSA for devices & things, alongside
the need for WebID-OIDC for AUTH - but - context was about my attempts (now
considered to have failed) to define a 'knowledge banking' ecosystem(s). If
alternatives are running locally, context changes..  So, as I'm working
through the issues with enabling TLS, I'm also considerate of the NextCloud
Solid[15] work, and am generally seeking to ensure support for SANs...
but, its all very experimental atm..

As for fairly simple tests / 'thought experiments'; I've also been toying
with the idea of how to define a PRIVATE & Permissions Supporting - chat
app; that uses local LLMs, and has the purpose of translating the language
people communicate in, to whatever language is preferred by the recipient.
Then also, considering what functionality might be added into it, to
support a profile intended to be for children (with guardianship supports);
in-part, considering proposed laws that claim to be about protecting
children on social media, by banning the use of social-media by young
people; but social media or social-web was part of the old definition of
'web 3.0'[16]; whereby 'social', refers to socialisation a foundational and
essential element to the natural function of many species of life, flora,
fauna & funga, and media being a plural to medium - so, the words they use
(whilst seeking 'age credentials' / identity wallet integration with social
media silos[17], that i envisage will lead to payments requirements being
sought to be resolved) have far broader implications; and, i find the
situation broadly depressing, as the 'status quo', due to the priorities
illustrated by others generally, means that there isn't a good way to
illustrate to these decision makers - the envisaged alternatives, that they
may act to make unlawful to produce - that could otherwise act to support
engagement between one-another, rather than dependencies upon global social
agora that continues to engender harms upon all people, whilst certainly
not equally, indeed, moreover - dynamically, per idiocracy related
'norms'...  IMHO...

The embodiment of these sorts of apps are still envisaged to be progressed
as a web-extension, but there's also still plumbing related processes being
investigated.

*NOTE: that in my modelling, i'm assuming users have their own domain (or
sub-domain); as was part of the
'ADP' https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/119/materials/agenda-119-hotrfc-sessa-04#h.eno136kpyxqs
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/119/materials/agenda-119-hotrfc-sessa-04#h.eno136kpyxqs>
work..  Therein, for example, users could create Email Alias that
specifically relates to the relationship (ie: the other person in their
'address book'); which, was hoped to help combat spam; but, may also now
have other implications given the direction of emergent laws, alongside
interfaces for different kinds of AI Agents.*

The other issue, that I've done SOME work on, but not enough, is in seeking
to figure out how best to structure content for ingesting into LLMs.  They
don't appear to support RDF 'natively', rather - designed with a focus on
JSON; which I think, has implications due to the lack of name-space
support; and, the means to better integrate Triple/Quad Stores with
VectorDB sources, I haven't figured out yet.  At least, not well.  I
experimented with uploading my pathology results archive into an LLM but
got poor outcomes, understanding that as the system is running on my
machine - its private. I also tried processing proposed legislation, but
similarly didn't get very good results - indeed, it seems they may be
'preset' to preference US legal structures, which has alot of differences
to other jurisdictions and related contexts.

But i need to figure out how to process the input docs, into whatever the
'best' format is; and am then seeking to progress previous work on 'hyper
media containers', which would package the files, provide an index in
whatever the best format ends-up being defined as; and, incorporate also
the links to original sources, etc...  which may in-turn lead to improved
solutions that might seek to make software available over IPFS, WebTorrent
or similar...

Part of the original purposes of importance to me, was the means to more
easily present complex legal issues to authorised parties...  part of this
process was also about collection of digital evidence, therefore
'verifiable claims'...  I think the function of a personally operated
'default assistant app', and related software, might change the way phones
work - so that, the means in which web-results change seemingly related to
private conversations - is more - personally controllable, definable,
etc... doesn't need to share 'the data' to foreign companies /
jurisdictions; and, make use of the active employment of those sensors for
purposes that act to better support human rights, as have otherwise been
set-aside...  or, considered a lesser priority, etc.  Yet, as is, i think,
consequential to the still nascent state of development in these areas, i
think there is still a lot of work to do; and, believe (given current
resources) it'll take some time to advance into something, that can be
easily deployed on a 'mac studio' or similar...

Another finding, fwiw, there's alot of these LLM applications and they
usually all want to provide the 'llm store', which, given some of these
'models' or 'ai agents', are 10's of GB (GB size, generally associates to
how many GB of vRAM needed to run them), duplicates on a system is
undesirable.  It would be better if there was a 'common store', and some
standard way apps can try to find it; whilst, there's still competition on
the host software running, that is then expected to load it; and, having
many of these agents is also undesirable...

AND: I was asked about Computer Vision, CCTV, Video Surveillance policy
recommendations.  I made a few suggestions based upon the notions of
ensuring people own their own biometric signatures, decentralised
discovery, support for 'commons informatics' in a manner that protects
'freedom of thought', as to seek to ensure analysis and/or identification
of objects (macroscopic or microscopic) does not end-up being 'owned' as a
proprietary interest via a particular jurisdiction (perhaps foreign, from
source) & various other related considerations, noting Mico-Project[19] and
Sparql-mm (thought usefully employed with Sparql-Fed) presented a potential
path, sometime ago..  I don't think Sparql-MM documentation is on W3C atm?
not sure how it could or should be updated either...

But; Per the Anti-Pattern[3] related realities - there is, at least
seemingly, a functional process where works seeking to define alternatives
to 'god ai'[18] projects can be disrupted, as a 'threat' by a now very
powerful movement, somewhat denoted by the use of JSON specifically, which
re: "The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil."[21] subjectively
associates to various complex implications, that are seemingly very
difficult for many 'geeks' and thereby reasonably impossible for other non
computer science experts - to be reasonably expected to understand..  OH -
if / when, the social elements develop, the means for people to form &
manage agreements between one-another, as is different to platform provided
'mandates', also brings about a need to look at how to support rules in
association to those agreements...

SO, whilst i tried to get UN Parties to help craft the UN Instruments to be
useful for that purpose; after years of best efforts,  i'll likely end-up
progressing that work myself..  as much as i had hoped there's be interest
to build it to be supported via https://metadata.un.org/

certainly, its difficult to both comply with expectations and
simultaneously, whilst controlling utterances, remain hopeful for the
future and communicate honourably, derivatives of work intended to promote
human rights and protect the means for persons to resolve disputes (or
consequences of harms) peacefully..  but, i also think that these issues
are indeed common and that it most disaffects those who truly care about
those sorts of values, as is different to the actions, activities and
derivatives of gamification... therein, 'reality check tech' would and
should end-up illustrating facts about how all natural agents are indeed
imperfect; whereas alternatives, may be delivered using modelling that
engenders different types of outcomes. Either way, there's causal effects,
but if 'drama protocols' gain supports in areas previously associated with
fields of STEM - then, the dynamics of the environment changes, as do the
outcomes, imho...  But, the consequence may be that some are defined to be
the problem; whilst others, defined perfect; and whether and/or how this
acts systemically, may well, by design, become unknowable..  I did
historically try to define 'Knowledge Age' but it got deleted
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Knowledge_age&action=edit&redlink=1
 So,
perhaps an 'authorised thinker' might want to try again, as this
'information age'[22] has many problems...  some like it, others - not so
much...   but, i'm not sure if a 'knowledge age'[23] is allowed,
particularly as historical attempts have resulted in failure. As such, I'm
led to remember the days when i started, as a young person in the 80s /
early 90s, a kid - getting parts from people selling their old gear 2nd
hand; finding software, learning - including, as one of the very few geeks
in the computer room at school...  those old days, of BBS sites, dial-up
modems - had a different sort of ethos about it..  I think the cost of
building LLM supporting machines is about the same, as computers back then
cost about 2k (AUD) so, putting something together nowadays (dual xeon,
256gb+ ram, 72gb vRAM, etc) when using 2nd hand parts, is about the
same...  not for everyone, but i think, something that should be allowed...

in the end, i think the outcomes have the capacity to be safer, better and
more useful, for people...  human centric[5], supporting the means for
people to own their own 'thoughtware'... thereby seeking to ensure an
alternative to digital slavery, where others own the software that defines
your mind... made accessible to you, via API as the consumable consumer..
said to be benefiting, because it's 'free'... I disagree, but, because I
disagree, I'm poor.  I'd prefer alternatives to UBI, where people are paid
fairly for good & useful work, but that's still something that MAY be made
achievable in future...  sadly.  Perhaps, as some suggest, it'll take
decades..  which, seems to me, to be an awful suggestion..   Whilst most
define whether a person is 'successful' based upon the characteristics of
their wallet, their 'identity wallet', which therefore makes it often
dangerous to talk about, if poor..  the PCI goals defined October 24-25 at
Stanford University, 2015[24] included; "7. Personal information in the
digital environment is protected by law and controlled by the individual
owner.", so, whilst its not been realised from that time, others, who may
not live to see it happen, have considered such ideals as being
important..  so, i think, there's still a lot of merit in seeking to
realise the availability of these softs of options; but overall, i guess -
that's where it's / i'm at...

There's certainly alot that can be pulled apart / deconflated, and sought
to be progressed...  I continue to believe 'humanitarian ict' is of
instrumental importance for our humanity...  So, I hope this helps.

🙏🕊️

Tim.H

*NOTE: This has been just written, no agents, not alot of 'careful
drafting', there may be errors whether it be due to autocorrect or similar;
or, just because i made a mistake or oversight, or other unintended error
or fault.*

[1] https://www.w3.org/policies/code-of-conduct/
[2]
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-payments-wg/2016Mar/0177.html
[3]
https://web.archive.org/web/20180901130552/http://manu.sporny.org/2016/browser-api-incubation-antipattern/

[4]
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-humancentricai/2023Apr/0004.html

[5]
https://www.w3.org/Search/Mail/Public/search?keywords=%22Human+Centric%22&indexes=Public&resultsperpage=100&sortby=date-asc

[6]
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rqYC2E2BDIHBADAT7-9CabawkmYBJpBBf1KJO24D7ig/edit?usp=sharing
[7]
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/19IEgvdvwl_EOGhmIFinVQu4OerRojeje8PaZWGvoO4Q/edit?gid=0#gid=0

[8]
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1jDLieMm-KroKY6nKv40amukfFGAGaQU8tFfZBM7iF_U/edit

[9] https://tailscale.com/
[10] https://localai.io/
[11] https://github.com/mudler/LocalAI
[12] https://github.com/WebizenAI
[13] https://www.w3.org/community/rww/
[14]
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-humancentricai/2023Jun/0005.html

[15] https://github.com/pdsinterop/solid-nextcloud
[16]
https://web.archive.org/web/20130122051820/http://jeffsayre.com/2010/09/15/web-3-0-smartups-the-social-web-and-the-web-of-data/

[17] https://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/CloudStorage.html
[18] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReB5UHfKCG8&t=666s
[19] https://www.mico-project.eu/
[20] https://www.mico-project.eu/portfolio/sparql-mm/
[21] https://www.json.org/license.html
[22] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_Age
[23] old notes:
https://medium.com/webcivics/a-future-knowledge-age-2e3f5095c67
[24]
https://peoplecentered.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Principles-of-the-People-Centered-Internet.pdf


On Wed, 25 Sept 2024 at 01:36, Michael Robbins <
michael@learningpathmakers.org> wrote:

> Sam Altman is touting his vision for centralized AI. Our group must be
> the vanguard for a radically different approach.
>
> [image: cover.png]
>
> The Intelligence Age <https://ia.samaltman.com/>
> ia.samaltman.com
>
>
> The human-centric pathway for AI doesn’t use unbelievable amounts of
> energy and water in the process. But this doesn’t leave control in the
> hands of businesses and billionaires, so Altman isn’t promoting it. It
> hinges upon the the decentralization of computing to local devices and
> building a radically different architecture for AI on a foundation of data
> dignity.
>
> Instead of supercomputing and server farms, the sane and sustainable
> paradigm is  building ecosystems of AI agents that represent individuals
> and organizations. This is also the revolutionary pathway we need to remake
> learning, digital networks, and democracy.
>
> The only way to reign in AI out of control is by building representative
> governance inside the AI ecosystem. We can’t leave it to businesses and
> technology has outstripped government. Our AI-powered assistants, built
> with data that we privately secure away from mega corporations, will become
> the ante for citizenship and democracy in the digital realm.
>
> Michael
>