Most relevant Q/A for lay person

This section is for lay person to understand issued of data integrity and what is contextual to Open Constitution AI network? Why this not-for-profit, co-operative AI network is a novel regulatory technology standard than a consumer-driven ‘for profit’ company?

How is the relationship between the beneficiary and the Open Constitution AI network any different than any other AI service provider’s relationship with its consumers?

In essence, we need to shift the perception of a service provider-customer relationship (generally perceived by humans when they interact with an entity) towards a more cooperative model when we are talking about selling AI services, where each member has a relationship with Trust for resource governance.

Members may consume AI services but are not considered consumers of a company. The benefits are available as a consequence of Trust membership. This approach differs from receiving market services from a company focused on increasing shareholder interests, even if such a controlled entity makes a consumer a member eventually, as many assert that in future, their service offering might turn into not-for-profit, public co-operative or open source models, etc. A member is different to a consumer because a member may also be a contributor.

One has to look at the root entities, how they are organized and the flow of funds to the beneficial owners.

In the case of the Open Constitution AI network, the movement may organise legal bodies in different jurisdictions with controlled Board structures. The overall structure is that the Trust’s beneficiary is everyone within the specific framework of the Trust’s Global Statutes, in accordance with any creator’s fundamental rights to private property.

Members are not just consumers of a company; they become beneficiaries through their membership with the Trust. So, membership comes first in the way that a beneficiary relationship is created with more control, where the beneficiary can amend the service policy as well by simply configuring data residency.

In the case of the Open Constitution AI network, the only market services involved are authentication, authorization, and accessibility(AAA) to the service itself. Once a member achieves AAA, the trust mechanism converts the member into a beneficiary, and there are no more market services that humans can engage in with the network across different jurisdictions. The jurisprudence is with the beneficiary when it concerns the meta data associated with human consciousness as it moves across different jurisdictions.

This is different from the secondary scenario of the service provider-consumer relationship, where constraints do not allow for the provision of such a harmonization and free flow of beneficiary services across different jurisdiction claimants.

The secondary scenario of the service provider-consumer relationship is actually alarming for AI development and in contrast to the cooperative model of this AI network.

The secondary scenarios focus on wealth accumulation by shareholders through financial records and conceptual instruments locked in one jurisdiction while collecting human consciousness data in other jurisdictions.

In this cooperative model of a networked AI for digital public services where the services go through transparent TRL(Technology Readiness Level) upgrade mechanism, beneficiary members have more control and can amend service policies by configuring data residency. It is like looking at an organisation with glass windows. One can see inside out so that there is no need to waste cognitive resources on reviews. It is then any individual member's learning curve, depending on at what 'machine time', the member joins the Trust machine.

This stands in contrast to the traditional service provider-consumer relationship, where closed constraints limit such harmonization of transparency and free flow of responsible services across different jurisdiction claimants.

While some collect coins and others collect stamps, some collect rare metals; this accumulation could lose its value since financial worth reflects ownership or control of resources, e.g. data.
A controlled accumulation and organization of data as a resource may lose shape and form quickly if the organization of the data loses legitimacy. This has happened time and again.

An AI service can be legitimate if the principles used for data organisation and collection are legitimate.

Now, the construct of self-governance of something which cannot be governed by a single jurisdiction claimant(cause of the nature of the private property(read a deep learning AI network which knows how to operate based on human thinking structure) allows the property’s beneficial owners to preserve the network's extraterritorial nature.

This moves consumption away from nationalistic patronages towards a global awareness of resource distribution within one ecosphere.

In simpler words, fiscal hosts exist to run fiscal nodes. If a jurisdiction is a disputed territory, you might want to run more than one node. The network, therefore, keeps mimicking human reality.

For any state, its economy is bound by state conventions, and economic regulations govern a geospatial reality.

Geospatial reality is made up of natural resources which do not even solely belong to the prevailing Homo sapiens species; how can it then be exclusive to one group or school of thought in the governed territory? Therefore, AI services can be global, and any local implementation is not really local. Localized deployments make use of several global resources.

Remember that exclusivity is different than a private creation’s exclusion rights exercised by creators cause creation is an ongoing concern, unlike a service provider where a packaged service is consumed. As a member of Trust, we are then consuming Trust of collection and organization of meaningful organisation of semi-conductor circuitry.

As was rightly mentioned in the Impact Report Vol 1

"Our aim is to grant individuals worldwide access to technology, skill development, and innovation."

It is a ‘worldwide’ access, meaning the publication is accessible across the world, something that, once published, the access cannot be revoked or controlled by anyone except that the source of truth can be controlled, which can be configured to have another version of the AI service published.

If we have arrived at a compact governance model, granting access through existing state governance models should be prioritized.

Large chunks of the population are experiencing poverty due to human-made artificial constructs, played routinely by very few millions over billion minds.

Human society has enough technology and organisational principles to reduce poverty, inequity and hunger. Unfortunately, those who possess control over resources though the monetary policies also possess existential comfort. After all, commonality predicts that the haves are privileged, and the ‘have not’ are not. The needless push for the existential comfort of one group over another, while unnecessary fiscal and governance baggage unfolds across economies, is not suitable for the current world order, where more revelations have been made on human existential than earlier or in the last century.