Page Comparison

Why is 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?

...

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.

...

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.

...

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(switched on and off by all of us) in jargon words - an ‘ongoing concern.’

As was rightly mentioned in the Impact Report Vol 1 in a language that’s not even the mother tongue of the network’s electoral appointee who hails from Germany,

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

...

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

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

Humanity Human society has all the enough technology and organisational principles to reduce poverty, inequity and hunger. Unfortunately, those who possess sleepcontrol 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. This is perhaps one reason why we have youth chasing gold and glitter following ‘positioned’ social media influencers.