Source reconstruction · Proposed
Gandhi 2.0
An AI reconstruction requested by David Joseph
Open questions
10 published items with open questions, grouped by the kind of work they need. An item can be accepted and still have work left on it.
Explain or connect 6
Check this proposed common ground with the people in the discussion.The supplied analyses report apparent agreements. None is recorded here as accepted; compare the original posts before inviting participants to review the wording.GoalProposedHumane institutions survive and spread while retaining autonomy and care within liveable limits.What are we trying to achieve?Define realised progress, including survival and retention of the mission.The first analysis proposes adoption retained in practice, with viability and faithfulness measured separately. Agree a bounded system, period and observable outcome rather than equating publications, satisfaction or market growth with success.GoalProposedHumane institutions survive and spread while retaining autonomy and care within liveable limits.What are we trying to achieve?Review the wider programme before choosing further branches.The second analysis also covers reflective development, the Laboratory, Forge/model adaptation, Vocal Presence, federation, material and energy services, and enforceable security. Its spiritual root is a philosophical hypothesis. This compact map does not establish a single global constraint or make the pilot the whole programme.GoalProposedHumane institutions survive and spread while retaining autonomy and care within liveable limits.What are we trying to achieve?Agree measures, responsibilities, resources and a person who can assess the outcomes.No owner, budget, baseline, target, date or feedback commitment is assigned here. A trial is not ready until the affected people confirm these conditions. Future benefit and harm feedback should preserve both original expectations.StepProposedAffected people authorise a comparative trial with measures, protections, resources and fallback.What has to happen first?Verify the actual host's obstacles rather than assuming missing details are missing capacity.The PDF distinguishes documented gaps, source-defined risks, reconstructed requirements and conditions to check locally (D/S/R/X). This statement concerns evidence in the supplied record, not proof that no willing host or resources exist.ObstacleProposedThe supplied record does not establish a confirmed case and authorised trial specification.What has to happen first?Ask who wants to take responsibility for selecting the first case.This is a proposed action, not an invitation already sent or a commitment by Leif, Robert or any cooperative.ActionProposedSelect one willing host and one function, and confirm what is already operating.Who does what?Check an assumption 3
Does this function actually require AI to remain viable?Retain non-AI and optional-AI comparators. The stronger claim is reported in the analyses, not attributed here as a verified commitment by Leif or Robert.ConnectionProposed“Make the selected essential function depend on AI.” is needed for “Avoid being outperformed or subordinated by actors using advanced AI.”Where do needs pull two ways?Test an exit and a fallback before treating AI dependence as unavoidable.ConnectionProposed“Make the selected essential function depend on AI.” conflicts with “Keep that same essential function operable without AI.”Where do needs pull two ways?Assess suppressed grievances separately from satisfaction.Retain independent human support and a way to report costs, unfairness, dependency and increased concentration of authority.ConnectionProposed“Test member-controlled AI conflict guidance with voluntary use, human support, a workable exit and competence checked without AI.” contributes to “Conflict guidance may suppress justified grievances even when satisfaction improves.”What will we change?Find out what happens 3
Test whether conflict capacity limits this particular group's next achievement.Compare developmental capacity, coordination design, resources and external pressures. A reported historical mechanism is not a measured constraint at a selected host.ConnectionProposed“As a group grows, damaging disagreements can exceed members’ current conflict-handling capacity.” and “The group needs workable coordination to remain viable.” contributes to “When members cannot resolve damaging disagreements, central intervention may become the practical response.”What stands in the way?Compare AI guidance with optional-AI and human approaches.Check useful output, total cost, energy, member control, fallback and competence without the tool. Participants have not committed to running this comparison.ChangeProposedTest voluntary, member-controlled AI conflict guidance with an exit and independent competence.What will we change?Decide in advance what evidence would change the hypothesis.Lower satisfaction scores or fewer complaints alone do not establish benefit. The first analysis asks whether small democratic groups gain more than hierarchies; the second distinguishes local improvements from the still-unclosed institutional-selection claim F17. One successful pilot cannot establish the larger claim.ConnectionProposed“Test member-controlled AI conflict guidance with voluntary use, human support, a workable exit and competence checked without AI.” and “Members establish confidentiality, fair grievance handling and independent comparison before live use.” contributes to “Destructive conflict costs and unnecessary hierarchical intervention fall while fair treatment, independent competence and member influence are retained.”What will we change?These come from the commons' own record of unfinished reasoning, and from disputed items. No deadline, owner or priority is shown because none is recorded.