💧Steve Davies

This wikipedia page needs updating. Labor Left indeed. I venture to say that in earlier times he would be disendorsed and expelled from the party.

Oops @wilding_gyres My early morning pre-coffee slip up. To the critics of the work of Nina.

Well, well. At last. A politician finally takes a real lead on AI. I am pleased and not surprised it is South Australia. They have a strong history on innovation. I remember the Don Dunstan years very well. Stands in marked contrast to the dangerous pompous insularity of the Albanese Government, the Liberal Party opposition and, indeed, the Australian Public Service. @AlboMP @SenKatyG The terms of reference are streets ahead. A solid foundation.

That's right folks. This is the official response to a simple and pointed request. Given the scope of what amounts to an official ban this has the hallmarks of an official collective decision. Between now and October I will plan further. That work is, in fact, already underway. The key question: Why this reaction to my arguing that there should be a publicly viewable component of the GovAI Use Case Library? Sure there will be use cases where a security classification is warranted. Locking down everything is highly questionable given there fact that Government AI will impact everyone. Why is that such an issue: Two words Open Government. And that's before I get to the many other issues this raises. That's all I will be saying for now. But I'll be watching. That's all I will be saying for now. The record speaks for itself."

Decisions Decisions. They all have their uses. A creative morning after doing series stuff.

This is a bridge between the Coffee, Claude an Dialogue of over a month ago and today. Are you OK with it?

Dear Shan, your comment about the genie is so very, very spot on. Out of the bottle and hard coded. And in an AI context on an industrial scale. Over a month before the APSC's 9 August response to Deep Truth. I started a conversation with Claude AI - "Coffee, Claude and Dialogue" was an intentional frame. I was having a tidy up yesterday. Your comments inspired me to revisit it in light of your comments and the response from the APSC. So a big thanks you to you. I'll be making it public tomorrow. I just have to add a section explaining the relationship of that dialogue to the response of the APSC. The APSC will obviously think what they like, but rest assured none of this is due to ego or emotiveness on my part. Three purposes this dialogue served: What focused people:AI dialogue looks like — sustained, critical, and substantive, not a single prompt-and-answer exchange A stress test of the Deep Truth Persona — applying the instrument live, in real time, to an unexamined case (the GovAI platform itself) Evidence of what a Bandura-grounded persona adds — AI reasoning through moral disengagement mechanisms alongside a human, rather than for them

Good night from River

Interesting in light of the work I’ve been doing. An effective social license that actually serves people requires moral engagement both within our institutions and AI itself. We’ll soon see how these government statements and policies stack up. theaimn.net/ending-the-silen…

The challenge on the left is what the Deep Truth Personal is all about. Government has questions to answer. Ditto!

Experimenting with posters for Deep Truth Persona analyses.