Editing Talk:AI Governance DAO (section)

= Resources =
Discuss any relevant info or related projects:<br>
State of the Art Research: DeAI, AI Safety, Public AI etc.

*DeAI
**Naptha.ai: litepaper
**Olas Network: whitepaper
**Boltzmann Network: whitepaper
**POKT Network
*Centralized for Profit AI
**Google AI
**Meta
**Open AI
**Microsoft
*Societies
**Berkeley Responsible Decentralized Intelligence (RDI)
**Stanford AI

<br>

Stanford Center for AI Safety
https://aisafety.stanford.edu/all-publications.html
<br>

MIRI (2005)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_Intelligence_Research_Institute

Allen Institute for AI (2014)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_Institute_for_AI
<br><br>
Leaked [https://www.semianalysis.com/p/google-we-have-no-moat-and-neither Internal Google Document] Claims Open Source AI Will Outcompete Google and OpenAI.
<br><br>
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSsYlPDmxfE&ab_channel=LexClips This video] is a relatable introduction which cites other work in the same direction as aiGovDAO: 
<br>
Marc Andreesson identifying issues and ways forward in [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nb3nS0BY5bo&ab_channel=LexClips this video].<br>
Jonathan Kung shared with me the [https://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/ai-bill-of-rights/ Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights] from President Biden’s White House Office of Science and Technology Policy identifies 5 principles to "guide the design, use, and deployment of automated systems to protect the American public in the age of artificial intelligence":
#Safe and Effective Systems
#Algorithmic Discrimination Protections
#Data Privacy
#Notice and Explanation
#Human Alternatives, Consideration, and Fallback
[[User:Craig Calcaterra|Craig Calcaterra]] ([[User talk:Craig Calcaterra|talk]]) 17:32, 5 April 2024 (CDT)

== Public AI ==
[https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.11350 This paper] introduces the [https://publicai.network/ Public AI] project, which has a similar goal to our AI Governance DAO. The issues raised are all relevant to our purpose and the suggestions are in concert with ours.

The major point of contention between the projects is perhaps the scope. I believe their definition of “public” in the term Public AI means strictly sub-national. I.e., each different country would have their own, distinct Public AI governing body. California would have its own Public AI group. 

However, the internet has made information technology tools global. So a supranational–i.e., global–context is more appropriate. Subnational governing bodies won’t be effective against the problems that this Public AI project is raising. [[User:Craig Calcaterra|Craig Calcaterra]] ([[User talk:Craig Calcaterra|talk]]) 10:42, 16 June 2024 (CDT)


[https://publicai.network/ Public AI] is not to be confused with [https://publicai.io/ PublicAI].

I disagree, I think the subnational is the way people are addressing the supranational. The UN is super ineffective and we need societal hackerspaces to help us figure out what the supranational needs. However, we need the supranational infrastructure yesterday. DGF is a wireframe of what is needed, and it should be tested in the subnational scales lots of times before anyone will accept it. --[[User:Kung|Kung]] ([[User talk:Kung|talk]]) 13:22, 14 July 2024 (CDT)