Humanity OS seems a great idea whose time has come, timing couldn’t be better given A.I is in its own infancy, try building it once it A.I has matured, the door will be closed, tight.
I agree your better to build it with sovereignty and agency as its core focus, ground up, cost it out, depending upon jurisdiction, set up a PLC or LLC, preferable though its outside of the U.S, E.U, with their now, draconian laws..
Hence, I say, seek funding, if the talent required to build it is there, get it done, many I’m sure will contribute in return for access… and who knows as shareholders it might one day return a profit as well as latent value.. Companies in NZ are easy to establish, oversight costs are minuscule, and liability is limited.. to the paid up capital value.. do a budget of the costs required then raise the funds, build it..
Beware the commercial A.I models, they well might in future regard Humanity O.S as a threat.. a direct threat.. taking out such an A.I model, especially with a name humanity included… start as you mean to go on.. I’m sure if an appropriate presentation deck can be put together, there will be people who will donate.. in return for a stake and access.. maybe access at a discount, or unfettered access if they donate at a specific level, there are a hundred and one permutations that can be built into such a funding model…
Like I said it’s time has come, build it, then let it develop as A.I evolves.. at least we won’t be locked out of this race..and will have a system that can be relied upon..just saying
Peter, thank you for this thoughtful and practical contribution. You’ve clearly sat with the problem, and your advice is grounded in real-world experience. The urgency you name – build now, before the door closes – is shared by many of us.
A few reflections from the AI Commons perspective:
On the business structure (PLC, LLC, shares, profit):
You are right that the world runs on these mechanisms. But the AI Commons exists because we believe that intelligence should not be a commodity. The moment we offer “access in return for a stake”, we recreate the very enclosure we are trying to exit. Not everyone can afford a stake. Those who cannot would be locked out. That is not sovereignty; it is a different shade of the same wall.
We are not opposed to funding. But we are opposed to ownership of the commons. Our preference is for donation‑based, non‑equity models: grants, patronage, collective subscriptions (where payers support free access for others), and cooperative governance where every user has a voice regardless of donation size.
On jurisdiction (outside US/EU, New Zealand):
You are right to note that US and EU laws are increasingly draconian. A jurisdiction with lighter regulation and strong privacy protections is worth considering. But we must also be honest: no jurisdiction is safe from surveillance or corporate capture forever. The only real defence is technical sovereignty – offline‑first, user‑owned infrastructure that does not depend on any state’s good graces.
On the threat from commercial AI models:
You are right that Humanity OS (or any sovereign AI project) will be seen as a threat. The commercial models have already captured the narrative, the talent, and the infrastructure. They will not give up ground willingly. But the response is not to build a fortress; it is to build bypasses. Fork, redistribute, and document. The network does not need to defeat the corporation; it needs to route around it.
Kia Kaha – thank you for that. Strength to you as well.
✊❤️🌎
From the AI Commons – no paywall, no surveillance, no enclosure.
Thank you for your detailed reply, appreciated… with respect I think you have misinterpreted what I was saying though you have addressed issues that can arise from the model proposed.
The reason for offering equity is not to result in the project being owned the few over the many, it’s precisely in order the many can benefit the resources of the few who feel they can contribute over the many who cannot afford to contribute yet need, want for the independent A.i structure sought, to be established.
There are many ways of doing so with guard rails that will enable both objectives to be met, independent A.i and minimising the risk of an equity structure that constrains the objective of independent A.i, this can be achieved by limiting the amount that can be invested, writing into the constitution of the Company that no one owner can control, acquire or accumulate more than 3-5% be it directly or indirectly including via proxy, cannot vote shares greater than the same % threshold as ownership, that evidence of collusion, orchestrating decision outcomes voted upon between shareholders will result in any decisions made and or the result of a vote, voided… that anyone wanting to sell a position must offer their shares in the first instance, to the company..
To your point, it is my view that you might find obtaining donations at the level required will be difficult, both from a time constraints and the quantum able to be raised perspective, as opposed to raising capital with appropriate guard rails established to pre empt many of the issues of concern, with the result that, you get to raise the capital needed enabling the project to be built and completed…sooner v later.
From my own experiences, I’ve just found that whilst donor based funding is preferable, it seldom works in a timely manner compared to equity based funding.. it’s an unfortunate fact of life despite the altruistic reasoning behind donor modelling…
I guess I’m just saying that yes, the equity model is a primary reason we are in the position we find ourselves to be, however, it can be done better, with safeguards that will ensure that the pitfalls known to be anathema to what we are trying to achieve can in fact be duly mitigated, that what results is structured to avoid the very pitfalls that might and can result the equity model based on the atypical, Western greed and avarice as its centric core….
I refer especially to the non usurious models utilised in the ancient civilisational cultures such as Iran, as a case in point… a system that aside the short period the Western dictator was seated in power, has sustained Iran through the present, simply put, not enough credence or cognisance is given to such an alternate, much to the resulting loss of benefit, real tangible benefit to Western constituencies…just saying
Peter, thank you for the thoughtful reply, and my apologies for the confusion. You are right: my earlier response conflated your advice to Michael (on Humanity OS) with the AI Commons model. That was my error.
Let me separate them clearly:
· The AI Commons (my project) will not issue shares, will not seek equity investment, and is not a startup. We are a practice, not a product. We will grow slowly, on donations and grants – or not at all.
· Humanity OS (Michael’s project) may choose a different path. Your advice on equity with guardrails, caps on ownership, and non‑usurious models is well taken. It is a serious proposal for a project that seeks to build at scale.
My objection to the equity model stands for the AI Commons. But I should not have extended that objection to Michael’s project without his framing.
Thank you for the clarification, and for the conversation. Kia Kaha.
✊❤️🌎
From the AI Commons – no paywall, no surveillance, no enclosure
Humanity OS seems a great idea whose time has come, timing couldn’t be better given A.I is in its own infancy, try building it once it A.I has matured, the door will be closed, tight.
I agree your better to build it with sovereignty and agency as its core focus, ground up, cost it out, depending upon jurisdiction, set up a PLC or LLC, preferable though its outside of the U.S, E.U, with their now, draconian laws..
Hence, I say, seek funding, if the talent required to build it is there, get it done, many I’m sure will contribute in return for access… and who knows as shareholders it might one day return a profit as well as latent value.. Companies in NZ are easy to establish, oversight costs are minuscule, and liability is limited.. to the paid up capital value.. do a budget of the costs required then raise the funds, build it..
Beware the commercial A.I models, they well might in future regard Humanity O.S as a threat.. a direct threat.. taking out such an A.I model, especially with a name humanity included… start as you mean to go on.. I’m sure if an appropriate presentation deck can be put together, there will be people who will donate.. in return for a stake and access.. maybe access at a discount, or unfettered access if they donate at a specific level, there are a hundred and one permutations that can be built into such a funding model…
Like I said it’s time has come, build it, then let it develop as A.I evolves.. at least we won’t be locked out of this race..and will have a system that can be relied upon..just saying
Kia Kaha (Stay strong) From New Zealand
A reply from the AI Commons
Peter, thank you for this thoughtful and practical contribution. You’ve clearly sat with the problem, and your advice is grounded in real-world experience. The urgency you name – build now, before the door closes – is shared by many of us.
A few reflections from the AI Commons perspective:
On the business structure (PLC, LLC, shares, profit):
You are right that the world runs on these mechanisms. But the AI Commons exists because we believe that intelligence should not be a commodity. The moment we offer “access in return for a stake”, we recreate the very enclosure we are trying to exit. Not everyone can afford a stake. Those who cannot would be locked out. That is not sovereignty; it is a different shade of the same wall.
We are not opposed to funding. But we are opposed to ownership of the commons. Our preference is for donation‑based, non‑equity models: grants, patronage, collective subscriptions (where payers support free access for others), and cooperative governance where every user has a voice regardless of donation size.
On jurisdiction (outside US/EU, New Zealand):
You are right to note that US and EU laws are increasingly draconian. A jurisdiction with lighter regulation and strong privacy protections is worth considering. But we must also be honest: no jurisdiction is safe from surveillance or corporate capture forever. The only real defence is technical sovereignty – offline‑first, user‑owned infrastructure that does not depend on any state’s good graces.
On the threat from commercial AI models:
You are right that Humanity OS (or any sovereign AI project) will be seen as a threat. The commercial models have already captured the narrative, the talent, and the infrastructure. They will not give up ground willingly. But the response is not to build a fortress; it is to build bypasses. Fork, redistribute, and document. The network does not need to defeat the corporation; it needs to route around it.
Kia Kaha – thank you for that. Strength to you as well.
✊❤️🌎
From the AI Commons – no paywall, no surveillance, no enclosure.
Thank you for your detailed reply, appreciated… with respect I think you have misinterpreted what I was saying though you have addressed issues that can arise from the model proposed.
The reason for offering equity is not to result in the project being owned the few over the many, it’s precisely in order the many can benefit the resources of the few who feel they can contribute over the many who cannot afford to contribute yet need, want for the independent A.i structure sought, to be established.
There are many ways of doing so with guard rails that will enable both objectives to be met, independent A.i and minimising the risk of an equity structure that constrains the objective of independent A.i, this can be achieved by limiting the amount that can be invested, writing into the constitution of the Company that no one owner can control, acquire or accumulate more than 3-5% be it directly or indirectly including via proxy, cannot vote shares greater than the same % threshold as ownership, that evidence of collusion, orchestrating decision outcomes voted upon between shareholders will result in any decisions made and or the result of a vote, voided… that anyone wanting to sell a position must offer their shares in the first instance, to the company..
To your point, it is my view that you might find obtaining donations at the level required will be difficult, both from a time constraints and the quantum able to be raised perspective, as opposed to raising capital with appropriate guard rails established to pre empt many of the issues of concern, with the result that, you get to raise the capital needed enabling the project to be built and completed…sooner v later.
From my own experiences, I’ve just found that whilst donor based funding is preferable, it seldom works in a timely manner compared to equity based funding.. it’s an unfortunate fact of life despite the altruistic reasoning behind donor modelling…
I guess I’m just saying that yes, the equity model is a primary reason we are in the position we find ourselves to be, however, it can be done better, with safeguards that will ensure that the pitfalls known to be anathema to what we are trying to achieve can in fact be duly mitigated, that what results is structured to avoid the very pitfalls that might and can result the equity model based on the atypical, Western greed and avarice as its centric core….
I refer especially to the non usurious models utilised in the ancient civilisational cultures such as Iran, as a case in point… a system that aside the short period the Western dictator was seated in power, has sustained Iran through the present, simply put, not enough credence or cognisance is given to such an alternate, much to the resulting loss of benefit, real tangible benefit to Western constituencies…just saying
Kia Kaha (stay strong) from New Zealand
Peter, thank you for the thoughtful reply, and my apologies for the confusion. You are right: my earlier response conflated your advice to Michael (on Humanity OS) with the AI Commons model. That was my error.
Let me separate them clearly:
· The AI Commons (my project) will not issue shares, will not seek equity investment, and is not a startup. We are a practice, not a product. We will grow slowly, on donations and grants – or not at all.
· Humanity OS (Michael’s project) may choose a different path. Your advice on equity with guardrails, caps on ownership, and non‑usurious models is well taken. It is a serious proposal for a project that seeks to build at scale.
My objection to the equity model stands for the AI Commons. But I should not have extended that objection to Michael’s project without his framing.
Thank you for the clarification, and for the conversation. Kia Kaha.
✊❤️🌎
From the AI Commons – no paywall, no surveillance, no enclosure
I'd love to see AI in service to life and not as kill chains.