The GAIT Data Flywheel - Early Draft

Reading time saved: 22 minutes

5 replies, 565 views, 15 likes



The GAIT Data Flywheel draft introduces a method for creating and maintaining Atlas data to prevent runaway AI, with a focus on roles within Alignment Conservers and avoiding governance conflicts; the community is actively engaging with the draft, using it to improve submissions and seeking to establish objective criteria for evaluating changes to the Atlas. While the draft's systematic approach and step-by-step guide are seen as positive, fostering a collaborative culture, there's no consensus on potential negatives, and next steps include developing a decision tree to assess amendments.

What is this about?

The discussion revolves around the early draft of the GAIT Data Flywheel, which is a systematic method for generating and maintaining Atlas data. The draft, shared by Le_Bateleur, focuses on the importance of creating robust Atlas data to understand and guard against runaway AI. It outlines a feedback loop of insights and data, emphasizing the roles within the Alignment Conservers, such as Aligned Voter Committee members, and the importance of avoiding micromanagement and conflicts of interest in Maker Governance. The draft includes a step-by-step guide for data generation, element analysis, contextualization, and composing data with a focus on the element's general and Atlas-specific meanings. It also discusses the need for a framework to evaluate data quality and the categorization of data when preparing an Element Analysis.

How is the community reacting?

The community is engaging with the draft by providing feedback and expressing interest in using the outlined data generation steps. Bonapublica showed appreciation for the work done by Endgame Edge and plans to use the data generation steps to strengthen their submissions. Le_Bateleur responded to questions about the workflow and terminology used in the draft, clarifying that terms like "Missing Atlas Data," "Related Data," and "Potential Conflicts" are meant as personal workflow tools. 0xDefensor requested assistance in establishing objective criteria for evaluating section transmutations and modifications within the new Atlas and proposed a decision tree as a potential criterion for evaluating amendments.

Why this is positive?

  • The draft provides a systematic approach to generating and maintaining Atlas data, which is crucial for the community's understanding and governance.
  • It encourages a culture that values the challenge and fellowship of working with Atlas data.
  • The draft includes a step-by-step guide that can be used by community members to enhance their contributions.
  • It emphasizes the importance of avoiding conflicts of interest and maintaining a balance of power within governance structures.

Why this is negative?

We have not been able to determine whether this will be negative.

Next actions

  • Community members are encouraged to use the data generation steps outlined in the draft to strengthen their submissions.
  • Further assistance is requested from EE-Gov-Facilitator to establish objective criteria for evaluating section transmutations and modifications within the new Atlas.
  • A decision tree or similar criteria will be developed to evaluate amendments to ensure they address gaps, align with original intent, and do not conflict with other sections or principles.

Posted a month ago

Last reply 13 days ago

Summary updated 9 days ago

Last updated 04/12 00:24