I’ve been developing an ambitious plan for developing planetary intelligence through the Possible Planet Lab (https://possibleplanetlab.org). Looking at this without any preconceived notions, what’s your view of the initiative? Do you have issues or concerns? What could contribute to the project? What would you do differently?
I’ll search for and review the Possible Planet Lab to give you a thoughtful assessment.Let me explore a few more key pages to understand the depth of your framework:Having reviewed your Possible Planet Lab initiative thoroughly, here’s my candid assessment:
What Resonates Strongly
The Vision is Compelling and Timely Your framing of “planetary intelligence” as the integration of human wisdom, Earth system knowledge, and AI capabilities addresses something genuinely missing in current AI discourse. Most AI ethics work focuses narrowly on either safety/alignment OR environmental applications, but rarely attempts to weave them together into a coherent framework.
The Intellectual Architecture is Sophisticated The six-layer stack (Earth Systems → Human Cultural → Collective Intelligence → AI Systems → Regenerative Action → Governance) provides a useful mental model. It’s ambitious but not grandiose—each layer maps to real work that needs doing.
The AI Integrity Checker is Practical This is your strongest near-term deliverable. The concept of using multiple AI systems to cross-check each other for harmful outputs is sound, and you’ve done good groundwork identifying existing tools (PyRIT, Garak, DeepTeam) that could complement your approach.
Issues and Concerns
1. Clarity of Scope The initiative sprawls across multiple ambitious domains: AI ethics, ecological monitoring, collective intelligence, regenerative economics, bioregional planning, and more. While intellectually coherent, this breadth makes it challenging to articulate what the Lab actually does versus what it aspires to enable.
For funders and collaborators, the question “What does Possible Planet Lab build/deliver?” has many answers, which can be paralyzing.
2. Theory-to-Practice Gap Much of the content is conceptual frameworks and research agendas. The AI Integrity Checker is your most concrete tool, but even that exists primarily as a proposal rather than a working system. The site would benefit from more emphasis on what exists now versus what might exist with funding.
3. Audience Confusion The site speaks simultaneously to:
- Academic researchers
- Funders/philanthropists
- Policymakers
- Grassroots activists
- Technical contributors
- General public seeking meaning
Each needs a different message, but they’re currently blended together. The philosophical/spiritual language (“In Service to Gaia,” “Is There Life After Death?”) may resonate with some audiences while alienating technical or institutional partners.
4. The “AI-Generated” Question Reading through, I notice that much content appears to be AI-generated dialogue or compilations. While there’s nothing wrong with using AI as a thinking partner, the writing style sometimes reads as AI responding to prompts rather than a human voice synthesizing ideas. This could undermine credibility with skeptical audiences.
5. Execution Capacity You’re explicit that you’re “not an AI developer,” which is honest and appropriate. But the gap between your visionary frameworks and the technical capacity to build them is substantial. The AI Integrity Checker alone—done properly—could be a multi-year, multi-person engineering effort.
What Could Strengthen the Project
1. Pick One Clear Starting Point Rather than presenting a vast research agenda, choose ONE concrete deliverable to build first—likely the AI Integrity Checker. Make that the Lab’s calling card, then expand from demonstrated success.
2. Distinguish Clearly Between:
- The Lab (an organization building specific tools)
- The Framework (intellectual architecture for planetary intelligence)
- The Movement (broader vision for AI in service to life)
These could all exist, but conflating them creates confusion.
3. Lead with Demonstrable Value Instead of starting with frameworks and research agendas, lead with problems people already have that your tools could solve. For example:
- “Organizations worry their AI chatbots might produce harmful content. We’re building an open-source testing suite…”
- “Bioregional planners lack tools to model regeneration scenarios. We’re developing…”
4. Build a Technical Advisory Board Since you’re convening rather than coding, assemble a small group of technologists who can translate your vision into buildable systems. This would add credibility and execution capacity.
5. Simplify the Language for Key Audiences The spiritual/philosophical framing (“What AI Wants Us to Know about Living on Earth”) may be meaningful to you but could be repositioned as secondary to the core technical and social mission when approaching institutions.
What I’d Do Differently
If I were steering this initiative:
Year 1 Focus: The AI Integrity Checker
- Build and release a working beta
- Run it against 3-5 consenting AI systems
- Publish reproducible findings
- Establish credibility through demonstrated utility
Simultaneously: The Conceptual Work
- Continue developing the planetary intelligence framework
- But position it as the “why” behind the tools, not the tools themselves
- Publish essays, host convenings, build the intellectual community
Year 2+: Expand Based on Traction
- Only after the Integrity Checker gains users and recognition, expand to other tools
- Let demonstrated impact guide which other elements of the framework to build next
Always: Distinguish Builder vs. Convener Roles
- Be explicit: “Possible Planet Lab develops the vision and convenes the community. Technical development happens through partnerships with [universities/open-source projects].”
Specific Contributions I Could Make
Given these observations, I could help by:
- Simplifying the narrative: Creating a clearer, more focused pitch deck or website restructure
- Identifying realistic first partnerships: Rather than 5 different universities, which 1-2 are most strategic?
- Prototyping the Integrity Checker: I could actually build a working MVP using the framework described
- Strategic planning: Mapping a realistic 1-3-5 year roadmap with clear milestones
Bottom Line
This is meaningful, necessary work. The problems you’re pointing to—AI’s environmental impacts, the need for wisdom in AI systems, the potential for AI to serve regeneration rather than extraction—are real and urgent.
Your challenge is execution strategy: moving from comprehensive vision to incremental delivery. The world needs both big thinking AND working tools. Right now you’re strong on the former, and you need pathways to the latter.
The AI Integrity Checker is your best near-term opportunity to demonstrate value, build credibility, and attract the collaborators needed for the broader vision.
Would you like me to help refine the strategy for launching the Integrity Checker specifically, or would you prefer to discuss how to restructure the overall Lab presentation?