top of page
検索

Project Introduction: The Boundary Line Project between Science and the Humanities (AI and Responsibility)

1. Core Concept: Restoration of “Exploration Time” via GhostDrift Theory

This project is an implementable intellectual initiative addressing the “Responsibility Deficit” in the age of AI, built upon the foundation of GhostDrift Theory.

Exploration Time (The Pre-requisite for Responsibility)

The process through which humans hesitate, fluctuate, and move forward without immediate articulation is not noise to be discarded. It is Exploration Time, the essential phase that must occur before responsibility can be established. While conventional systems record only the “Result (Observation),” GhostDrift Theory mathematically demonstrates that such designs lose this Exploration Time (the “Ghost”). Consequently, even if a fluent post-hoc explanation is generated after an accident, responsibility cannot be formally fixed.

Distinguishing between Decision (Machine) and Choice (Human)

This project strictly differentiates between the following:

  • Decision: The binary 0/1 logical processing performed by machines.

  • Choice: The act of bearing meaning undertaken by humans. The mission of this project is not to consume these “Choices” as mere metaphors or commentary, but to rearrange them as Structural Resources (Exploration Logs) in a form that can be preserved.


2. Stopping the “Evaporation of Responsibility”: Observation and Rearrangement

In modern systems, we observe a phenomenon where evaluation criteria shift post-hoc after an accident, making it impossible to fix anyone’s judgment. We define this as the Evaporation of Responsibility. This is not a lack of individual morality, but a structural phenomenon occurring when the design for recording and re-evaluation is insufficient.

  • Failure Mode: Ambiguous boundaries, absence of exploration records, and impossibility of third-party verification.

  • Project Proposal: Rather than compressing the fluctuations described by the humanities into a form machines can process, we rearrange them into a preservable structure as auditable evidence, thereby enabling responsibility to exist as a structure.

Minimum Specifications for Fixing Responsibility (3 Conditions)

  1. Immutability: Prerequisites and logs cannot be conveniently rewritten after a decision is made.

  2. Operational Invariance: Re-evaluation remains possible under the “same evaluation criteria (operator)” even after an accident.

  3. Finite Responsibility Boundary: The scope of responsibility can be mathematically delineated as “up to this point.”


3. Implementation Artifacts: Exploration Logs and Use Cases

Sample Exploration Log (Evidence)

What is fixed is not the “conclusion.” What is fixed are the prerequisites, evaluation criteria, boundaries, and uncertainty widths referenced at that specific moment.

2026-01-05T10:12:03+09:00 | decision=Adopt_A | criteria_digest=hash:e3b0... | boundary_id=BD-017 | assumption="Supply risk stabilizes within Q1" | uncertainty_width=0.35 | verification=hash:9f3c...2026-01-05T10:12:18+09:00 | decision=Adopt_A | criteria_digest=hash:e3b0... | boundary_id=BD-017 | assumption="Two alternative sources secured" | uncertainty_width=0.20 | verification=hash:2b8a...2026-01-05T10:12:31+09:00 | decision=Pending | criteria_digest=hash:8a21... | boundary_id=BD-018 | assumption="Regulatory interpretation pending" | uncertainty_width=0.60 | verification=hash:44d1...

Use Case: Procurement and Auditing

  • Current Issue: Following a failure, criteria often drift (e.g., “Cost was the priority” vs. “Safety was the priority”), causing responsibility to evaporate.

  • Solution: By fixing the “Evaluation Criteria (Digest of Operator),” “Prerequisites,” and “Hesitation (Width)” at the moment of decision, we create a state where criteria cannot be shifted post-hoc. The result is Auditable Evidence that enables the assignment of responsibility.


4. Minimum Implementation Requirements (Commit / Ledger / Verify)

  1. Commit: Commit the decision’s target and criteria at the exact moment of judgment.

  2. Ledger: Save the fixed evidence in an unalterable form (e.g., via Distributed Ledger Technology).

  3. Verify: Mathematically confirm that the “original procedures (criteria and boundaries) have been preserved and can be re-evaluated under identical conditions.”

【What Verify Guarantees】

  • G1: Immutability (Logs match the original commit values and have not been altered).

  • G2: Operational Invariance (The criteria_digest is fixed, allowing re-evaluation using the same operator).

  • G3: Finite Responsibility Boundary (The scope of responsibility is reproducible via logs).

【What Verify DOES NOT Guarantee (Non-Guarantees)】

  • NG1: It does not guarantee the optimality or correctness of the decision result.

  • NG2: It does not erase the “original hesitation” (uncertainty width remains as is).

  • NG3: It does not automatically determine the responsible party. Determination of responsibility is conducted by humans once boundaries and procedures are fixed.

【Definition (Minimal Formalism)】

Let the evaluation operator specification for each log be $operator\_spec$, and define the digest as follows:


5. Official Implementation Examples: The Intersection of Science and Humanities

This is an attempt to restore the "hesitation" recorded in various cultural practices as structural resources.



6. Access Path to Public Structure

  1. Project Summary (This Page): Overview of restoring exploration time and fixing responsibility.

  2. Minimal Demo: Visualization of the process where hesitation and prerequisites are fixed during “Choice.”

  3. Implementation (GitHub): ghostdrift-responsibility-ledger

  4. Patents: Legal evidence defining responsibility design as implementable technology.

  5. Archive: Case studies rearranging humanities knowledge as structural resources.


7. Entry for PoC / Joint Research (Enterprise Implementation)

This project is an implementation protocol designed to stop the evaporation of responsibility in organizational decision-making. We offer PoC programs connecting Exploration Logs (Commit / Ledger / Verify) to real-world cases.

What is fixed in the PoC (Not the Conclusion)

  • The targets of fixation are the Prerequisites, Evaluation Operators, Responsibility Boundaries, and Uncertainty Widths (Exploration Time).

  • The goal is to prevent exploration from being erased and absorbed into post-hoc explanations, ensuring a state where third parties can re-evaluate under identical conditions.

Menu (3 Cases)

(1) Financial/Investment Decision PoC

  • Objective: Fix prerequisites, rejected alternatives, and unacceptable failure conditions as immutable evidence.

  • Deliverables: Criterion Set v1, Rejected Alternative Logs, Verification Procedures.

(2) Autonomous Driving / Diagnostic AI PoC

  • Objective: Detect the moment where “judgment margins” are forcibly collapsed and design Operational Boundaries (Beacons) for human intervention.

  • Deliverables: Beacon Definition v1, Collapse Event Specifications, Operational Boundary Flow.

(3) Recruitment / HR Evaluation PoC

  • Objective: Structurally prohibit the post-hoc swapping of evaluation criteria; treat criteria changes as strict new ID issuances.

  • Deliverables: Criteria v1 Fixed IDs, Change Protocol, Swap Detection Log Specs.

【Mandatory Note: Ghost-Safe】

The purpose of this PoC is NOT to evaluate, optimize, or score “hesitation.” The purpose is to fix responsibility boundaries and immutable conditions to prevent hesitation from being erased and subsumed by post-hoc justifications.

GhostDrift Mathematical Institute The Boundary Line Project between Science and the Humanities (AI and Responsibility) Secretariat


 
 
 

コメント

bottom of page