Human Friendly Robots? (was: Re: Coherent (modern) definition of RWW)

hi All,

spent a few hours on this; i probably need to spend a few weeks on it, to
get a better grasp on how to simplify complex considerations into a
short-form note.  in anycase,

thinking about the problem - I woke up today thinking of the 'name'/term -
'human friendly robots' as the answer...

Therein - thinking is - maybe, a more coherent way of looking at it is
in-fact kinda multi-dimensional...   ('status of the observer').  So, if we
try to work on 'what does success look like', then work backwards?

Therein - as a 'consumer' / user (intended beneficiaries = natural persons
/ life) explanation: a moment of inspiration considered the concept of;
'humanity friendly robots' or biosphere friendly robots'...

SO - imagine, for a moment, we've got an ecosystem in place; and we're
trying to describe why people want to get the one that supports RWW..

I think the concept of 'human friendly robots' concept, might be simple
enough to then explain AI, semweb and all the stuff that people - neither
understand, nor have the time or interest, to learn...

From a 'consumer' Technical Perspective:  Could it be 'boiled down' to a
particular 'run-time', like a webserver, virtualbox, TOR,  or even browser
(ie: https://beakerbrowser.com/ is v.cool, imo, but no RDF yet).  Indeed
the easiest example today, would be openlink virtuoso
https://virtuoso.openlinksw.com/pricing/  - BUT - it doesn't have a broader
'software ecosystem' which is presently... from my perspective - enormously
concerning... Therein; there's alot going on with 'health passports' /
electronic instruments required for societal participation, etc.  I heard
on the news yesterday, that the sorts of things that may come soon; is that
people with valid status on these electronic instruments will be allowed
out of home detention, during future 'healthcare' 'lockdowns'...  I find
the way CEOs and Politicians have 'taken control' of some old, purposeful
work (intended to be a component) sickening; i've illustrated a similar
consideration below, re: blockchains.

NB: re:publica 2012 - Eben Moglen excerpt (5 minutes):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zXqHIJJVxk

In-order to create 'write permissions' there needs to be some form of
'social contract' framework that's set-up... i think the group *could* aim
to produce some functional outputs, ready for market take-up; without works
necessarily progressing through the WG process.

other 'multi-dimensional' considerations;

Technical explanation - 'a temporal web - towards web 4.0'
= Truth telling infrastructure.
= democratisation of research and scientific (STEM) debate.
= Provenance (who did what when, not 'one man, in the centre of
every-thing')

Technical consideration - Social Machines[1]
= my friendly robots..
= 'transhumanist' like extensions of my 'consciousness apparatus', that
changes lived experiences - more than simply owning a smart-phone (or
'health-based passport', that seemingly has the effect of making it
mandatory to carry a mobile device at all times?).  The implication of
these sorts of considerations, link to concepts about perception, conscious
experience, causality, etc.  So, if information systems, forming an
interference 'array', act (perhaps by design) to distort reality - to
disassociate 'the observer'; then that is an 'unhealthy' (or perhaps evil)
thing.  So - without going all 'CyberPunk 2077' on the topic (hunting out
the 'soul killer') - what if what we're looking to create is a 'healthy
web'.,..  What if the work process of doing this stuff, could be translated
(at the pub) to stuff, people care about, people know about, but feel
entirely unable to influence...

what do you do - 'i've been working on digital identity solutions
to...'...   vs.,   'i'm working on a healthy web, a web that improves the
health of our world' or similar..  anyhow. raw thoughts; but i hope, that
kinda makes sense.   Cyber peace fair (fair dealings); not 'cyberwarfare'
as though hostilities are beneficial for our biosphere of those who are
part of it.

Tooling considerations
- SemWeb based. (but not 'globally centralised')
- Decentralised.
- works 'offline' (works better online)
- Dignity interpretation of 'privacy' - if the behaviours of persons result
in someone's death, i don't see how killers should be able to protect their
'reputations' / themselves via 'privacy principles'. cause / effect.
Although dignity (ie: seeing specialist doctors, etc.)
incorporates confidentiality, etc.
EG: Very unlikely a gynaecologist should be encouraged to promote their
business on instagram. (or a armed forces person, or person who holds a
license to practice medicine - engages in work that results in death of
another, then, perhaps that's part of the confidentiality thing;
notwithstanding the importance of supporting the works of various courts of
law).

*A Bit About 'blockchains'*
Personally, i'm not really a fan of the term 'blockchains' as i felt it had
an implied implication; of excluding other hybrid approaches that could
have a better energy profile associated to it.  In-turn, it appeared that
there's a bunch of different ideologically based deliberations; believing a
computationally secured framework is 'most secure', when it can still be
taken down (just different attack vectors); and there are enormous risks
associated to block-chain 'snake oil' promoters, particularly those; who
don't have any technical knowledge and are purely commercially focused.  A
hammer is good for some things, bad for others.  Seems some blockchain
retailers are passionately selling hammers as a way to cure pink eye, and
will demonstrate passionately their position by demonstrating the use of
their 'hammer' in increasingly forceful ways; telling others it was all
about ensuring you could 'see their point'; but it doesn't really matter if
its later found to not make sense - sites can be updated, and all the
(digital) evidence just goes away. if they made enough money, they can 'buy
drinks' for the 'influencers', or help them get on the stage in the next
conference; or whatever, as goes that old 'golden rule' concept, woven
with, the MKT theory that says, its all about how you 'sell it', not what
it is.  A sad and basic fact appears to be that the vast majority of
persons get involved and/or use stuff - to support a self-interest profile
tied directly to greed.  This is tied also, to the requirements of people
who are paid for working on behalf of another entity; whether that be a
company or government, or even universities; and if the business model is
too hard (hammer doesn't fix pink-eye) - they may not be supported to do
work on that thing; and/or, may seek to make 'modifications' so that it
fits into a 'world view', that focuses on the money.

SO - if we're going to have infrastructure that is intended to support a
'moral economy', do we need to expressly declare, demonstrate and consider
how some sort of economic model might work for users, and perhaps look to
bake it into the 'solution'; if that is the case, then, it would likely
result in a radically different commercialisation projection (ie: how many
people would be incentivised to use it / build upon it, etc.); and, the
'purists' who are moreover motivated by a means to use a
debilitating savant capacity (or whatever) to do something useful for
others in a particular field of excellence; an ability to have greater
influence over the implications of run-time distribution, given that we've
tried the model where we assume, without purposefully considered &
implemented - infrastructure support - the 'good' will win, simply because
its 'good'.

*SO: My thinking about that...  *
It its known that there is an energy lifecycle that flows 'end to end',
some systems are more efficient than others; people are willing to support
some 'causes', but are mostly going to use resources for purposes of 'self
interest'; so - maybe there's merit in considering how ontological schema
can be applied to support a moral-economy transactional capacity, linked to
'how it works'; so that, there's a way to provide an economic solution,
that can assist in 'self funding' the decentralisation of ('commons' in
particular) assets, that may in-turn support a business model for deploying
these 'rww servers'??   Which may in-turn indicate some of the 'headers'
(/WebID-[auth]) details that are required to better 'communicate' the 'pay
4 play' nature, of how it is energy works (generally).


*Web We Want[2] considerations: *
the intro's generally talk about 'a way to support documents'.  but its
grown alot...  I think i'll write a blog piece about my bigger thoughts on
this (in the interests of defining a shorter post).

- Global Web (not fragmented -  implicitly understanding it needs to be
'permissive'?? who decides??).
- A Really good basis for democracy
- good for healthcare (well-being of human beings / biosphere?); where
research is consumable to support advancements / exponential productivity
growth?
- something that can be made to be universal (overtime, perhaps not just
for human beings)
- something that demonstrates excellence in the field of encouraging
exponential innovation (problem solving, but implicitly also - work?? etc.)

SO, when looking at those sorts of 'goals' and/or criteria for auditing
'performance' of how solutions work today, vs. how we can do some
meaningful work, to solve some important problems; intended to result in
some very positive 'web-scale' impacts:  what does that mean, at the many
levels it involves.

There are an array of foundational principles that are intended to apply in
regions that seek a governance structure built upon consent of electorates
who provide mandate to their elected representatives; whom, they are
entitled to go to communicate their problems with, in the interests of
seeking to address those problems as a community via instruments of law
and/or public policy.

These social systems, in-turn, rely upon the ability for electorates /
groups - to form 'common-sense' understandings of various issues; as is
required to form express (educated) consent / mandate; and, for the
purposes of a court of law, where disputes should be handled between
entities relating to some sort of alleged wrong and/or harm; which in-turn
depends upon evidence, not hearsay and certainly not an opportunity to
target an adversary then apply a penalty, to be supported by hearsay and an
opportunity to write new rules & backdate them for justification
purposes...  that sort of stuff, is kinda why the magna carta[3] came
about; or even more, how it became instituted overtime, and grew alongside
'the' 'common-law'[4].
(needless to say, the R&D process for me, has been particularly
enlightening, in many ways...)

SemWeb is inherently AI[5] (source Dame Wendy Hall).

Timothy Holborn

-

[1] https://www.apress.com/gp/book/9781484211571
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCplocVemjo&t=300s
[3] https://www.google.com/search?q=%27magna+carta%27+%22holborn%22
[4] https://www.google.com/search?q=%27common+law%27+%22holborn%22
[5] https://github.com/WebCivics/ontologies (
https://github.com/WebCivics/ontologies/blob/master/webscience.jpeg )