AI Governance DAO

From DAO Governance Wiki
Revision as of 17:03, 1 April 2024 by Kung (talk | contribs) (Started adding the machine translation DAO example.)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

aiGovDAO is a DAO devoted to democratic regulation of the development of artificial intelligence (AI). It uses the DAO Governance Framework to coordinate decentralized collaboration toward the development of artificial intelligence on a global scale. The goal of aiGovDAO is to use AI to promote human flourishing, and to develop wise practices in the deployment of this technology.

aiGovDAO practically achieves effective regulation by participating in the non-profit and for-profit development of AI tools. The aiGovDAO is capable of instituting incentives which promote benevolent outcomes because it uses the decentralized governance procedures of DGF. So the distribution of power over the governance decisions of how to regulate the development of AI is not solely concentrated amongst those who develop tools which gain the DAO monetary profit. In the aiGovDAO, power is consciously distributed to those who serve the higher humanitarian goals of the project.

Background

Every tool is used to increase or diminish humanity. When hominids first used sticks to extend their reach, they discovered a new opportunity to defend their band from predators and increase their power to acquire food. The first spear was also used to oppress the band of hominids violently. Every tool can be used to support, defend, and promote human flourishing. And every tool can be used to undermine, attack, and oppress humanity.

AI is a new tool that is disrupting human society on a scale previously unimagined. Machine learning has transformed the way people interact with their world. The Google search engine has given people powers of understanding their world that would embarrass the gods of Greece. Humans are now faster than Hermes was ever described. Google Maps has made us more knowledgeable of local geography and economics than Athena.

Machine learning and neural networks are different than other tools in their global effect. The sweeping interconnection of web communication aggregates global information more effectively than any national intelligence agency has ever before aspired. These tools effectively exploit this information to solve any problem posed in ways that surprise us with their effectiveness and creativity. Contemporary AI tools such as ChatGPT and DALL-E 2 have put this power in the hands of anyone with a cell phone. The promises and threats that the use of these tools poses for humanity cannot be overstated.

Like any tool, AI cannot be simply suppressed. We don't have the governmental structures to achieve that in our current global society. Perhaps that is for the best, since as it allows us the freedom to develop openly. However, for such powerful tools, it is essential that development happens in a wisely regulated manner. Wise regulation is a matter of carefully monitoring development and guiding it in directions which serve our values.

Decentralization

Many groups are aware of the threat to humanity of technological disruption. And every major center for development of AI has instituted some process for analyzing the ethics of their deployment of the technology, to a greater or lesser degree. However, almost all of these major initiatives are centralized, since the major power behind AI development is for-profit exploitation of the technology.

Therefore, unfortunately, at the moment, the ultimate values and goals that are guiding the development of AI are largely limited to monetary profit. A primary use of AI today is to improve the effectiveness of advertising. This is having negative effects on society as social media is being engineered to increase engagement at the expense of social harmony.

Further, we cannot establish wise regulation for such a complex problem as AI governance without improving our governance mechanisms, without improving democracy and human communication.

aiGovDAO uses the structure of DAOs to foster collaboration to develop AI tools in the service of the common good. Decentralized organization is used to empower as many people as possible who are conscious of the problem and wise with respect the the consequences of governing the progress of AI. We use the architecture of a DAO to filter information at the edge, to promote the best ideas from the globe to guide the development of AI.

Value statement

We seek to develop wisdom in the deployment of AI technology, for the purpose of increasing individual agency balanced by promoting social harmony. Control of AI technology should be as decentralized as possible, so that the excesses of its power are always countered by balancing forces. Yet this decentralized control should be in harmony with a universal will toward the good.

Comments

Individual agency is sometimes referred to as hyperagency, which means that the individual participating in the system (or game) is capable of making choices with respect to values that are not obvious from within the confines of the system.


Several polarizing questions arise in the process of governance.

Polarizing questions

1. Can anonymous AGI agents participate in aiGovDAO?
Our initial answer is, "No." The purpose of aiGovDAO is to promote human flourishing, as a group and individually. Ceding our authority to machines is counter to that goal.
On the other hand, a natural function of aiGovDAO is to develop the use AI, to create new defenses against malign uses of AI. AI is an important tool for helping each individual and community filter information. Both to promote human flourishing in general, and specifically in order to make aiGovDAO more effective, we encourage the use of AI.


2. Does aiGovDAO promote universal control of the development and deployment of AI? If so, is that centralization of power?
We wish to promote the healthy development of individual and collective human power. The healthy development of power must be tempered with wisdom. The power of the individual must be balanced with the wise application of that power in the service of communal harmony. The individual member's agency is always in tension with the group's harmony. Each side supports and erodes the other side. So this question is impossible to answer. We wish for the group to be healthy and powerful, but we also require there to be openness to leaving the group and creating alternative organizations.
We seek to create a community that guides the development of AI in positive ways. We wish to create a powerful organization that controls that development inasmuch as its goal is to prevent negative outcomes. The power over the decisions of what is good and bad can lead to oppression when control is too strident, and can lead to chaos and dissolution when there is too little control. While we wish to give individuals greater freedom and power, we also wish to support groups which limit the damage of the consequences of greater individual freedom and power. The solution to these problems of too much or too little control, is to nurture the development of healthy applications of AI which promote human flourishing. Healthy applications also include tools which police malign uses of AI.

Mechanism

From an abstract level the development of the aiGovDAO involves the following simple 2-step process:

  1. Network of devs make free AI tools cREP-weighted references develop the Forum DAG with posts on i. Governance proposals & protocols ii. Culture and values
  2. Work = specializing free software for customer $ fees) $  --> wREP b) Citations --> DAO power & values


This process collects and curates a network of like-minded developers who make useful and good AI tools which follow the values of the group. The useful AI tools use 1. open source development principles and transparent training data, and 2. small processor & P2P network focus. Once the objective value of the network's tools and talent is demonstrated after Step 1., customers in the market will pay $ fees for their personalized work. Once $ fees are entering the DAO for work, the reputation mechanism functions according to DGF workflow.

Governance

aiGovDAO follows the DGF governance process. aiGovDAO uses the REP-weighted Forum to aggregate and filter ideas.

In more detail, during Stage 1., the aiGovDAO develops its protocols and free tools as a collection of approved Projects. A Project is a collection of Proposals for how to develop (including how to limit development) AI tools. A Proposal can be added to the Forum by anyone. For instance, a Project may be an individual's recommended tool, or it may be a crowdsourced dev project (similar to the Polymath Project) consisting of multiple Proposals linked by citing each other, or it may be a statement intended to clarify the values of the group.

Before the Projects and Proposals lead to citations from profitable uses in Stage 2., a generalized PageRank algorithm weights the value of such Proposals by their WDAG context in the Forum. This citation system allows the DAO to select some proposals to promote for member attention over others. The weights of value are specified by chat reputation tokens, called cREP.

At Stage 2. the aiGovDAO has become more mature, and has implemented protocols for how to reward and punish members. Several approved Work Smart Contracts (WSCs) will be available for customers and workers. Protocols for validating the WSCs are established. Protocols for proposing legislative changes to the DAO are established, including how to recommend improvements to WSCs or validation scripts, or review procedures. At this stage, when $ fees from customers enters the system, work reputation tokens (wREP) are minted and distributed to participants. The WSCs reference the proposals that helped the members complete their for-profit work, so the previously free tools cited are rewarded with wREP for their authors. The customers' fees are shared will all members proportional to their wREP holdings via the REP salary. This function of power and monetary reward assignment is basic DGF workflow.

AI itself can be used in the process of governance, as proposals may be generated by NNs, but selected and promoted by human discernment.

wREP tokens then determine the power to validate Proposals for regulating future AI tech development through the aiGovDAO, since each Proposal used by members is validated using wREP voting.

Code

Examples

A decentralized AI stack includes research and tooling conversations around data storage, compute, hardware, AI models, and governance. We will use a sample Natural Language Translation DAO to showcase how credit and money can be earned by a research community that creates papers and free tools to a for profit DAO.

Machine Translation DAO (MTD)

As the world becomes more globally interconnected, translation becomes more and more important. There are a number of open and closed-source machine-translation (MT) tools (open-source: Libre Translation, Marian NMT etc. and closed-source: Google Translate, DeepL etc.). Though these aforementioned tools are generally free at the conversational level, translation of either highly interpretive and or high stakes documents i.e. legal documents, poetry, literature etc. are still generally out of current MT scope.

The MTD will create free tools and research on MT to consult and customize these tools to specific customer needs. We will discuss two starting scenarios 1) a group of developers that want to build a Decentralized AI community and start earning money 2) experienced researchers that want to develop tools and eventually make money consulting on tools they develop and research.

In the first scenario the developers would start by offering a translation service for various document types at different scales i.e. translate all of my company's relevant Vietnamese legal documents into Swahili. They would collect a repertoire of paid and free translation computer-aided translation (CAT) and MT tools and professional translators to make the final edits. Over time the MTD will develop more specific ways to apply their tools more specifically while developing new tools.

Work

  • Consulting
  • Research
  • Development

Governance

Executive

Protocols will execute automatically based on decisions from Legislative governance. There is no determination of good or bad work in Executive governance.

  • ie. smart contracts.
Judicial
  • Judicial Proposal
    • i.e. Readjustment of REP because protocols were not adequately contextualized.
  • Work cited
  • Arbitration DAO
Legislative
  • Legislative Proposal
    • i.e. Changing a parameter value for Validation Pool or Forum.

See Also

Notes & References

Retrieved from "https://daogovernanceframework.com/w/index.php?title=AI_Governance_DAO&oldid=1466"