Google News "Human Centric AI" Sheet

Hi all,

I've gone through my mail and extracted all the 'Human Centric AI' google
news alerts, updating the sheet[1].

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1BdFy5m-J5Lj5LnYxDY7d06MtKaUw3G3UqaLWKnuwptk/edit?usp=sharing


I intend to update the workbook with a history of the use of the term /
concept - 'Human Centric', and related terms (ie: Human Centric Web, Human
Centric AI, Human Centric Internet) alongside populating a sheet with the
many documents (IE: PDFs) that also refer to the term.

The Hope is that this will in-turn provide assistance in seeking to define
what the term will end-up meaning, which then provides support for people
seeking to define tooling to support interoperable functional requirements
for it.

I am mindful of a few aspects, around 2014/5, when the term emerged. In
particular, it was important for me note the use of the term by MyData[2]
around the time (2015) I went about seeking to define the term - primarily,
for licensing purposes in consideration of future potential challenges,
where the need to ensure works on RWW[3] (incorporating WebID[4]),
Web-Payments[5], Credentials[6] and the very early stages of DIDs
(decentralised IDentifiers - or RDF on DLTs generally, given diversity of
protocols available) - could be later defined, to ensure support for what i
called 'knowledge banks' or 'knowledge banking' infrastructure, enabling
means for people (natural people, human beings) to 'own' - at least, a copy
of the information about them, and thereby enable curation / management, of
the 'AI' Interface (ie: Sparql related), as was publically described and/or
considered on the lists[7] yet - i do lament, the implications of my desire
to support privacy in relation to use-cases of the most serious kind,
associated to human rights[8] problems, abuses, wrongs...  which, i tried
not to describe in detail; and, now consider the implications given that
the outcomes, so many years later, continues to fail to address those most
important - intents & purposes, of all the work done, over so many
years...

Apparently considered to be reasonably defined as 'free' work..  which is
in-effect supported by the socioeconomic 'digital transformation'
infrastructure designs, as deployed and as is illustrative of the
prevailing ideologies, overall.

Whereas, the means to create software related systems, ecologies - akin to
'mainframes', where the 'platform provider' or 'organisation' is in control
of records, which due to being digital, is about as reliable as a database
update - if, the 'data subject' is aware of the existence of a record, or
able to have some sort of means to either review it or seek to ensure its
accuracy; or, make use of it, reliably (as is expected to be its purposeful
utility by 'organisations' / 'platforms') in a court of law, to protect
human-rights[8] vs. an alternative information systems methodology; that
provided an alternative and/or complimentary information management systems
ecology, aimed at ensuring both,

- Natural People, have the infrastructure made available to them re:
"digital transformation" to ensure they are able to maintain 'personhood' -
a term, i considered to mean - the abilities and rights of a person unto
law, thereby also - dependent upon both agency, and evidence - as
prerequisite for any effort to seek lawful resolution of disputes via
courts of law (as is referred to in relation to human rights[8]) .
- That wrongs, most-often associate with the actions or inaction by one of
more natural persons - whether they be employees or otherwise occupying a
role of 'agent' on behalf of another legal entity; or simply acting in
their own personal capacities (or perhaps, subject to debate); when thereby
disaffecting others (directly or indirectly); should, by way of 'digital
transformation', enhance the capacity for a dispute to be resolved in a
court of law, particularly where there are criminal and/or compensatory
implications.  Fundamentally, neither organisations nor software can be
sent to prison.  People, representing organisations should still be
expected to act in accordance with 'rule of law'[8]; yet, as human beings -
are still human beings, even when employed - the ability to have systems,
that supports them & their children, alongside other roles of guardianship;
if, defined well, should provide the cyber-security capabilities to discern
- what exactly happened, who did what; and how, to resolve disputes -
peacefully, fairly, by lawful means.

- that the work, i initially started ~2000 - in-part inspired by a
relatives work on how synaptic nerve-cells function (John Carew Eccles),
considered the implications of how to ensure people own their own
biometrics - or moreover, more broadly - their 'mindware', that it not be
bound to a platform - or made useless..  rather, that there were both, the
underlying standards (patent-pool furnished, royalty free - technological
tooling); and, the means to craft a licensing paradigm to support the
notion, once better demonstrated.

note that, 'semantic web' or 'web of data', is innately foundational AI.
https://x.com/sotonWSI/status/1172458143428816896

 therefore, the concept of adding 'ai' onto the term - wasn't really
considered necessary until after the marketing community became highly
interested in the derivatives of machine-learning / deep-learning related
fields of science, that nonetheless still requires - accurate, underlying
data structures - as to ensure outcomes are as-intended and configured to
effectively support optimisation of productivity, 'reality check tech' - as
i called it..

When reviewing the progress of 'human centric'[1], it appears to have gone
in various directions which basically end-up with an outcome that appears
to me - to be more about, instituting controls to ensure the only option
available, is in-effect - the platform or organisational centric / centered
ecosystems - including - what i saw long ago as 'human centered' being a
desire, ie; by governments, to have 'total knowledge of a data-subject'
(natural person) whilst prevailing supports, to ensure - if they've got a
complaint, the organisation claims to 'know nothing'...  (a tribute to
hogan's heroes?  idk).  which basically, makes the broader considerations
and objectives - somewhat mute.  Perhaps, this is the future of the
'western internet' if not otherwise the future of social[9] media[10]
(plural of medium[11] "a method or way of expressing something") for all
members of our human family...

I really don't know.

I'll be continuing to do the work i want to do, making best efforts (in
terribly difficult circumstances) via my 'web civics' activities - which, i
reserve the right to boot people off if i choose to - it is not an official
w3c activity or similar, its - well - something that i started in 2014 to
support, what i now call 'humanitarian ict' (with 'human centric' related
ideals, etc per my definitions); link is,
https://webcivics.zulipchat.com/join/vouhrkyb73p5jrrcgqjctqdu/


Zulip Apps: https://zulip.com/apps/

Jitsi Apps https://jitsi.org/downloads/  (used for impromptu teleconfs,
chats :) )


I'm just starting it, and intend to define a method where people are then
able to be compensated 'fairly' (not in perpetuity) for what is otherwise
considered to be appropriately defined as 'free work', which, afaik, is
unable to be supported contractually.  therefore, seeking to advance 'value
chain' (NB: note from ~2015[14]) or resource accounting, to establish
'obligation costs', processes & consequentially 'obligation free'
(software) outcomes, although, sadly, it appears as though the volume of
work needed to assemble pieces and/or refactor - to ensure higher-order
moral considerations[8] are instrumentally / foundationally supported,  may
well be significant; as such, part of the work i'll be doing in web-civics
will be more focused on events, and related 'social factors' pertaining to
philosophical engineering[15][16] that, i'd welcome more insights about how
W3C intends or seeks to advance its works and supports for semantic 'smart'
internet related aspects, both pertaining to HTTP and indeed also, far more
broadly... whilst also, not necessary.

Nonetheless, as a w3c devotee for some years, I thought, getting the
spreadsheet[1] done was important as i was concerned about the need to get
a chairperson for this group, which now appears resolved...
nonetheless...  I hope this provides some support...

I'm otherwise looking to collate all the old 'civics' use-cases from over
the many years (decades) and hoping that i'll help to illustrate a range of
important human rights[8] related functions, that the 'we're doing it all
already' crowd, overtime, haven't been able to deliver - for some reason...
This should in-turn help to better illustrate the useful purpose of
ensuring people can have a far more meaningful rights-relationship with
their inforg[13].

Through this process i'm hopeful that i'll be able to progress works that
were earlier started with a view to seeking to make progress via this w3c
group (the intention / purpose, of creating it); whilst, some aspects have
developed overtime (ie: MCP) and, without funding to support work to
promote the needs of our humanity - other than as 'consumables', it's tough
going.  Indeed, that's been the case for a long time..

In Conclusion;

One of the top-level tasks of importance was to define what people mean by
'human centric' and indeed also, 'human centric ai'..   when putting this
sort of question through an LLM, I personally find - I get very different
meanings, than was intended.  ATM, it seems OpenAI is the leading "Human
Centric AI", or perhaps just one of them.

https://futurism.com/secret-openai-memo-chatgpt-reliance

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt30127325/
<https://www.imdb.com/title/tt30127325/> (well worth watching /
considering).

Depending on the meaning defined, I think it's worth considering how
top-level ontology for human beings - might be defined & what is required
to support 'personal ontology' in relation to that lens both for adults,
and also children / elderly / emergency situations - guardianship
relations.  OWL has a top-level predicate of 'thing', and schemaorg defines
'doctor' as a place (building) not a person - which leads to implications
relating to the semantics of the object's soul, spirit, so much more...
'identity development', with all its nuanced experiences, inferences and
environmental requirements, rather than merely being defined by a wallet or
quasi private key..

I don't really know how to get this sort of work done in W3C - usually,
someone would 'see a good idea' then go seek university funding to do it,
over a couple of years..  I'm not sure, we have that much time...  indeed,
I doubt we do. so many who've had amongst the most remarkable contributions
to the underlying works built upon, in this field, are now deceased..  I
hope, the future of the web - builds solutions, to better ensure they are
remembered; and that also, as 'avatars' and similar develop, that they're
able to define themselves, rather than being defined by others - for
gainful (or other, somewhat immoral) purposes...   noting also, personally,
policies within a jurisdiction - is kinda, up to the people of that
jurisdiction to sort out[8] whereas when that then goes
extra-jurisdictional - seeking to apply ideology, language or language
dialect or moreover - control, globally...

 *Apart from questions concerning freedom of expression in Australia, there
is widespread alarm at the prospect of a decision by an official of a
national government restricting access to controversial material on the
internet by people all over the world.[17] *

herein, the implication is not merely about 'restricting access' its
moreover the ability to create hyper-personalised 'pods' - defining people,
effectively as a class of natural resources - based, upon policy - somehow
thought to be sustainably maintained, by the subjects - targeted as tenants
of those pods..  reminds me of Doctor Who[18]

anyhow.  Over & Out!

Timothy Holborn
https://www.linkedin.com/in/ubiquitous/



[1]
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1BdFy5m-J5Lj5LnYxDY7d06MtKaUw3G3UqaLWKnuwptk/edit?usp=sharing

[2] https://github.com/okffi/mydata/commits/gh-pages/
[3] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rww/
[4] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webid/
[5] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webpayments/
[6] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-credentials/
[7]
https://www.w3.org/Search/Mail/Public/search?keywords=%22Human+Centric%22&indexes=Public&resultsperpage=100&sortby=date-asc

[8] https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-listings
[9] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/social
[10] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/media
[11] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/medium
[12] https://github.com/HumanCentricAI-xyz/notes-dev-guide/issues
[13] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inforg
[14]
https://docs.google.com/drawings/d/1oUsSlPEh8erOdkQJCLzFHBaqp7AYOJCqDw82YrCg9f4/edit?usp=sharing

[15] https://www.w3.org/2007/09/map/main.jpg
[16] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qL1b9xVMoqU
[17]
https://www.hopgoodganim.com.au/news-insights/esafety-showdown-commissioner-takes-on-x-in-landmark-ruling/

[18] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_Who