Editing Talk:AI Governance DAO (section)

== 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)