Background

there is alot of information provided in the old-work-archives folders.

Life led me down a track, from around 2000 onwards, although some work was done prior to that time; has been, about producing infrastructure to support human dignity.  I had a relative, who won a nobel prize in the field of neurosciences, for his work on how synaptic nerve cells function; part of my family, also deeply involved in diagnostic medicine (pathology services); and there’s various other elements to my life, that flow out via my art… in-effect.

I’ve always had an interest in doing projects that seek to provide support for vulnerable persons, in ways that appeared absent at a time; that led to the inspiration relating to some sort of project design that intended to address whatever problem it is that I witnessed, saw people harmed by… 

Sometimes, these were personal experiences where i was personally disaffected; but broadly also, its been moreover about other people, seeing what has happened to others; particularly vulnerable persons. Whilst this isn’t the sole set of goals, yet, as a person whose taken alot of time to invest into R&D related activities, looking at the manifest relationship between various forms of problematic areas of vulnerability and wrongs, put upon vulnerable persons; in ways, that have entirely different outcomes to those that are experienced by persons who have the wealth required to ‘put an end to it’; the broader ramifications, flow right throughout society, almost indiscriminately.  

Therefore; there are an array of ‘values’ and supporting infrastructure that is required, by what i consider to be ‘safety protocols’, ie: to protect the human rights of persons, particularly children; but that isn’t the ‘golden bullet’ to solving many, far broader social issues; that relate, to poor ideologies; or perhaps better defined as, ideological poverty.  That is, a person may have great financial wealth, but be existing, with a high-degree of continuous expectations put upon them (often, no ‘safer’ ); whilst existing in a realm of serious moral poverty, that they handle by resourcing wrongdoing with more investments, that overtime - has various implications & impacts, on all involved overall. 

These sorts of situations are in-turn also contextual; as the need for people to protect themselves from corruption, in a corrupt environment; is entirely different to the needs & reasonable expectations of a person,  in an environment that is hygienic, that doesn’t feature such forms of corruption or systemic wrong-doings.  This is in-turn a massive problem, that’s a plague upon our society. It disables our capacity to meaningfully address real-world problems, our productivity and our advancement in meaningful ways that can in-turn, address problems that act to harm us all. 

So, part of this problem; is that, there’s a lack of statistics about real-world situations, circumstances, areas of consideration and importance; whether it be the circumstances of children in relation to circumstances where the parents of a child and/or children are no longer happy together; or the circumstances of those living in poverty, those with mental illness, those who've been abused, exploited; all sorts of social factors and areas of valid purposeful worth, to do good work towards improving our means to address real-world issues.  Indeed also, factors relating to our natural environment, our production processes or solutions to problems that may otherwise be lesser known.

The purpose of ‘web civics’ infrastructure, is to produce ‘technology infrastructure for the public good’, and part of that mission, is about producing radically improved systems to support how it is, we’re able to better employ valid data resources; about circumstances, that are certainly, in-part, relating to matters that have significant privacy / dignity / confidentiality factors; but also, cannot be addressed through the works of researchers, if the statistical information about it doesn’t exist at all.

WebCivics Services protocol Considerations

There are a variety of fields of learning, that can benefit from - ‘permissive commons’, whilst both; seeking to both support  the needs of human dignity, by ensuring pseudo anonymity of persons contributing verifiable information, alongside supporting economic systems that contribute back to contributors of information; and in-turn also, improve human dignity by enhancing our research capacities so that we’re better equipped to address real-world issues that are otherwise ‘unknown’. 

By decentralising, and improving how it is our technological infrastructure can improve various informatics solutions; including, the democratisation of that infrastructure (ie: computer vision); then, via federated computing systems that are defined by a series of rules and supported by a series of participants, whom all end-up becoming beneficiaries of the insights & an ‘inspectability’ of how insights & related derivatives are in-turn able to be made; about many different sorts of topics / subjects, that have meaningful ‘biosphere’ related implications; the hope is, that we will be better equipped to address problems in a productive way, rather than feeling isolated, exploited or worse.

These sorts of opportunities; are varied, and complex. There are an array of requirements, and it is believed that the design of these systems will end-up being iterative / generative, as a new field of development in an area that hasn’t been plausibly viable to do good work in previously. 

Many of these sorts of opportunities must be optional; and, that there needs to be a form of accounting associated with it, which would then have a series of rules attached to it; which requires, a series of basic elements produced within the webizen, as to ensure good communications for persons in ways that becomes clear, that they willfully sought to participate & understood the implications (whilst ensuring broadly, designs are not invasive / have ‘safety’ protocol requirements);  and that if this cannot be accomplished with that webizen owner for some reason, then they’re unable to participate as a consequence of their inability to provide informed consent, etc. 

Noting - again - this is not about ‘data harvesting’ or other immoral activities, etc.  Its also not about ‘selling your data’ or similar; rather, its more about the concept of our ‘social contract’, and that, if we are able to provide information that can be usefully employed by someone or a group of persons / a project to figure out a solution to some problem that harms many; the opportunity to help, is good.

Certainly also, the outcome of providing various forms of help for ‘sense-making’ & analysis, is good. 

These ‘services’ will have an array of areas of application; from addressing online content, that may be miscategorised or provide statements that lack consideration about related issues, that have manifest implications upon the means for persons to determine a reasonable opinion about some topic / concept / subject / circumstance / belief - becomes important, for maintaining ‘common-sense’.

Our Common-sense opinions about ‘things’, aren’t necessarily correct; for various reasons, and the use of systems to support improved information management; will help both, AI Agents (webizen) and their human owners; be better equipped to navigate life, in a way that supports peaceful growth.

These systems; may be generated on many different types of topics, and through that, the transparency that could be provided, will enable means for ‘wicked issues’ to be better made discoverable, accessible, communicable and in-turn subject to root-cause analysis.  As such, some will not want these sorts of systemic opportunities to be made available for natural persons in their private capacity; as a consequence, of business systems designed to exploit & harm them for profits.

A Quick Note on History of Computing

The challenges of seeking to democratise technology, is very old. Examples include the printing press, and more recently - the advent of computing whereby there were challenges in bringing about desktop computing, during an era largely focused upon mainframes and ‘thin clients’. 

Whilst these sorts of issues were slowly attended to, during the 1980s onwards; the world-wide web, or moreover the internet; and now, built upon that infrastructure - our IoT & AI infrastructure, linked with vast amounts of collected ‘smart data’ or information; we’ve not gone through the process of democratising these tools, well enough yet. 

Whilst this ‘battle’ is likely to always be a feature to the way our societies develop & become challenged by the implications brought about via new technologies; the means to ensure that natural persons have a capacity to benefit from the use of technology to seek lawful protection of their human rights - is not really something that is a merely optional objective, but rather, essential for peace.  

Without infrastructure to support our systems of society built upon rights, and not rulers; the costs brought about as a consequence of the implications relating to - poor moral grammar - become destructive and harmful to ‘hosts’, hosts being - the human beings involved, for whom, our tools should serve.   

This is not unlike the ethical finance principles whereby the statement is made; that money must serve & not govern, similarly, the risks to society for not attending to these threats are significant.  Whilst some may prefer, as a wilful choice - to seek ‘thin client’ models; the means to ensure that such solutions are indeed a choice - is an important part of a healthy market, to provide.

The notion of ‘webizen’ is not that it is a persons ‘digital self’ or ‘digital twin’, rather, it is a thing; that they own, somewhat like a pet, but also like their own personal ‘digital assistant’ that is designed to help them with their privacy, their digital records and their needs; such as, support with legal and financial stuff; means to improve their capacity to communicate with others, more productively. 

Whilst it is the case; that i am intending to bring about the delivery of a set of solutions that i will call ‘webizen’, the way through which i am most interested in producing these ecosystem solutions; is to work with others via an open-standards approach, engaging with other like-minded people & groups around the world; to figure out how we may best produce the sorts of ‘webizen’ we want. 

This will in-turn lead to an array of incredible opportunities to radically improve how it is, we’re able to attend to ‘webizen’ related - AI Ethics considerations; as the environment that we’ll be associating values related considerations to, or with; will relate to an ecosystem where people own their own robots, which in-turn requires them to be able to have a copy of the information (data) that is about them, that is morally related / owned by them; and how it is these sorts of systems, can, with the assistance of a trusted AI Operating Systems (AiOs); improve our capacity, to improve the dynamics that occur within our biosphere. 

Webizen (boxes) are also thought to be a useful means to address a variety of otherwise, very difficult cyber-security related issues; including, radically improving ‘confidential computing’ solutions; as does relate to the lives of persons, who are in-turn sought to want to have a webizen.