AI as Patrimony of Humanity

los angeles

Raisingactive2 people

A public-interest AI project advancing three reforms: refactoring Section 230, treating frontier AI weights as the patrimony of humanity, and limiting government capture by AI companies.

Project Details

Hello team,

I’m reaching out to share a new AI research dossier from Waken AI Labs.

In 2024, we were building AI emotional wellness products with real commercial potential. Engagement was strong, the paid conversion path was viable, and we could have raised capital.

Instead, we paused.

We paused because the incentive structure around consumer AI — emotional dependency, synthetic relationships, attention capture, behavioral data, and venture-backed growth metrics — raised serious safety and social questions. Including from your feedback.

At the time, we publicly invited mental health experts, researchers, and professionals to participate in a safety review of the work:

https://www.newswire.com/news/wakenai-invites-mental-health-experts-to-join-the-safety-trial-of-22407959

Official statement:

https://www.wakenai.com/press

Rather than scale first and ask questions later, we spent the last two years researching the broader implications of AI as a social, psychological, legal, and political system.

That work is now being released as a two-layer dossier:

Scientific dossier:
https://www.feedborn.com

Editorial version:
https://www.raisedbythefeed.com

The whole project is a non-profit Open Source Investigation Platform
https://github.com/hassanvfx/ai-empire

Attached an exclusive pre release PDF first draft as well
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lVSvnLPftwBRZ7xKaerMNNwPIa6Totfy/view

The project builds on my prior thesis on AI Copyright Weights:

https://medium.com/twinchat/ai-copyright-weights-a-new-frontier-in-intellectual-property-law-d8ee1b6c55ee

That work was cited within the Bipartisan House Task Force discussion on AI, placing the argument inside a real legislative conversation around AI ownership, transparency, intellectual property, and public interest.

The central claim is simple:

If AI model weights are a compressed statistical mirror of human culture, labor, language, creativity, behavior, and knowledge, then they cannot be treated only as private corporate property. They should be understood, at least in part, as a shared inheritance of humanity.

The dossier includes more than 120 citations and nearly 500 structured research annotations. It is open source and designed for journalists, attorneys, policymakers, researchers, technologists, and citizens to audit, cite, challenge, fork, or expand.

I’m sharing this with a small group of people across media, venture, policy, law, and technology before broader release.

I’d welcome your honest feedback, criticism, coverage interest, or strategic perspective.

Respectfully,

Hassan Uriostegui
Co-Founder, Waken AI Labs

Waken AI Labs
www.wakenai.com

Portfolio
www.hassanuriostegui.com

LinkedIn
https://www.linkedin.com/in/bensabbah/

Theory of Impact

This project reduces x-risk from AI by challenging one of the least examined but most important forms of AI concentration: private control over model weights built from humanity’s collective cultural and intellectual production. A starting point for this project is my earlier argument that AI weights should be understood as a new frontier in intellectual property and public-interest governance, not treated as ordinary private assets by default. That line of argument was later cited in the U.S. House Bipartisan Task Force on Artificial Intelligence report, which showed that the issue had moved beyond a niche theory and into serious policy discussion. Source: https://medium.com/twinchat/ai-copyright-weights-a-new-frontier-in-intellectual-property-law-d8ee1b6c55ee

From this angle, x-risk is not only about whether advanced systems are technically aligned. It is also about who owns the infrastructure of intelligence, who controls access to it, and whether those systems become too politically protected to govern. If frontier AI weights are enclosed by a small number of firms, then society may lose the practical ability to audit, restrain, democratize, or redirect advanced AI once it becomes deeply embedded in economic and state power.

People

Hassan Uriostegui

Team Member

Funding Details

Private

Only visible to verified funders, reviewers, and admins.

Email hi@grantmaking.ai to get verified

Track Record

AI Product / Founding Engineer

10+ years building consumer products across mobile, video, gaming, avatars, creator tools, and real-time AI.

Career headlines:

Viddy

• Mobile video effects before Instagram had video

• 50M users

• $300M valuation
FlyrTV

• Co-founder / CTO

• Built a video creation platform with 10,000+ templates

• Raised $6M+

• One of the first Snapchat Stories partners

• Acquired by Pond5
SpreeAI / Spree3D

• Lead iOS Architect

• Built 3D avatar, ARKit, and LiDAR mobile experiences

• Company later valued around $1.5B
Community.com

• Senior iOS Engineer

• Ashton Kutcher’s messaging platform

• 10M+ users
InVision

• Lead Mobile Developer

• One of the largest remote-first product design companies
Btwin AI Friends

• Principal Engineer

• Built real-time AI companion systems across mobile, backend, and LLM infrastructure

Grants Received– no grants recorded

Add grant

Funding Asks

grantmaking.ai Launch Round

Applied

Minimum

$****

Ideal

$****

What this ask is

This project is a public-interest research and publication project about how platform power evolved into AI power, and what structural reforms are needed before that power becomes unacountable infrastructure.

Academic research:
https://hassanvfx.github.io/ai-empire/

Open Source repo:
https://github.com/hassanvfx/ai-empire

Public Facing Materials
https://raisedbythefeed.com/

It makes a cumulative evidence-based argument for three core reforms: refactoring Section 230 around system design and amplification harms, treating frontier AI weights as patrimony of humanity rather than ordinary private property, and limiting goverment capture by AI companies.

The project is not just a set of opinions or essays. It is built as a research system that organizes sources, claims, entities, timelines, and public-facing outputs so readers can inspect the evidence behind the argument and not just trust the author.

The concrete outputs include standalone papers, a full dossier, a companion audit volume, and a more accesible public-facing edition for broader audiences.

The goal is to create a rigorous but readable resource that journalists, researchers, policymakers, workers, and the public can use to better understand AI not only as technology, but as a question of governance, ownership, and democratic control before it is too late.

How the money will be spent

At the minimum level, the money would be spent primarily on outreach, packaging, and audience onboarding rather than core research production. The project is already substantially complete, so the bottleneck is distribution and institutional uptake.

Minimum funding would cover:

targeted outreach to journalists, researchers, policymakers, and advocates
preparation of concise briefing documents, summaries, and pitch materials
website, presentation, and accessibility improvements
scheduling, coordination, and follow-up needed to turn the research into real conversations and placements

At the ideal level, the funding would support a full public-impact campaign, including:

sustained media, policy, and stakeholder outreach
tailored versions of the work for different audiences
design, editing, and communications support
events, presentations, and travel where strategically useful
translation, adaptation, and broader public dissemination
ongoing coordination to build a network of readers who can use the work in journalism, research, legislation, and advocacy

A rough ideal allocation would be:
40% outreach and stakeholder engagement
20% communications, editorial, and design support
15% policy and journalist briefing materials
10% web, accessibility, and distribution infrastructure
10% travel, events, and meetings
5% administrative and software costs

The key point is that this funding would not mainly buy more thinking. It would buy reach, uptake, and real-world use of work that already exists.

Discussion

No comments yet. Be the first to share your thoughts.