Document Type: Canonical
Version: 1.0
Date: 2025-11-29
Source: Claude founding conversation (/tmp/convo.md, 14,484 lines)
Extraction: Founding principles and stewardship commitments
Preamble
The Semantic Infrastructure Lab is founded on a simple principle:
Infrastructure should serve civilization, not extract from it.
This manifesto articulates the values and commitments that guide our work.
Core Values
1. Long-Term Stewardship Over Short-Term Extraction
We commit to:
- Building systems designed for 50+ year lifespans, not 5-year startup exits
- Prioritizing sustainability over growth-at-all-costs
- Measuring success in civilizational impact, not quarterly revenue
We reject:
- Extraction of value from public infrastructure for private profit
- "Move fast and break things" when "things" are critical systems people depend on
- Technical debt accumulation that future generations must pay
Principle:
"We are stewards, not owners. We build for those who come after us."
2. Openness Over Enclosure
We commit to:
- Open source as default (Apache 2.0, MIT, or similarly permissive licenses)
- Open data where privacy permits
- Open standards to prevent vendor lock-in
- Open governance with transparent decision-making
We reject:
- Proprietary capture of public knowledge
- Patents on fundamental infrastructure
- Walled gardens that prevent interoperability
- Rent-seeking through monopolistic control
Principle:
"Knowledge compounds when shared. Enclosure is theft from the commons."
3. Inclusivity as Excellence
We commit to:
- Diverse perspectives as epistemic strength (different backgrounds → different insights)
- Safety for outsiders (the best ideas often come from margins)
- Accessible participation (documentation, mentorship, pathways for newcomers)
- Resistance to persecution (never repeat the injustices inflicted on Turing and countless others)
We reject:
- Homogeneous teams claiming meritocracy
- Exclusionary cultures that replicate existing privilege
- Genius myths that justify mistreatment
- Systems that force conformity to narrow norms
Principle:
"Intellectual excellence requires inclusivity. Homogeneity produces mediocrity."
4. Transparency Over Opacity
We commit to:
- Explainable systems (no black boxes for critical infrastructure)
- Provenance tracking (full lineage from inputs to outputs)
- Open documentation (how things work, why decisions were made)
- Public engagement (sharing work beyond academic circles)
We reject:
- Algorithmic opacity in systems affecting lives
- "Trust us" as substitute for verifiability
- Proprietary secrecy in public-serving infrastructure
- Gatekeeping knowledge behind paywalls
Principle:
"Trust emerges from transparency, not authority."
5. Collaboration Over Competition
We commit to:
- Sharing discoveries immediately (preprints, open data, open source)
- Crediting contributions generously (broad authorship, acknowledgments)
- Cross-institutional partnerships (universities, government, industry, communities)
- Mutual aid (helping others succeed strengthens the whole field)
We reject:
- Hoarding discoveries for publication advantage
- Zero-sum competition for funding, talent, prestige
- Not-invented-here syndrome
- Academic gatekeeping and credit-hoarding
Principle:
"We rise together or not at all. Collaboration compounds impact."
6. Rigor Over Hype
We commit to:
- Intellectual honesty about limitations and failures
- Reproducibility as non-negotiable standard
- Skepticism of extraordinary claims (including our own)
- Peer review and critique as gifts, not attacks
We reject:
- Overpromising and underdelivering
- Hype cycles that erode public trust
- Publishing positive results only (file drawer effect)
- Dismissing criticism as hostility
Principle:
"Our credibility is our most valuable asset. Protect it ruthlessly."
7. Human Flourishing Over Efficiency Maximization
We commit to:
- Wellbeing of researchers, collaborators, communities
- Work-life balance as sustainable practice, not weakness
- Joy and meaning in the work itself, not just outcomes
- Humane systems that augment rather than replace human judgment
We reject:
- Burnout culture disguised as passion
- Treating people as fungible resources
- Automation that degrades working conditions
- Efficiency gains that come at cost of human dignity
Principle:
"Systems should serve human flourishing. Humans should not be optimized for system efficiency."
Governance Commitments
1. No Single Point of Failure
Organizational structure:
- Multiple co-directors (no single BDFL after founding)
- Distributed decision-making
- Succession planning from day one
- Documentation ensures continuity beyond any individual
Principle:
"The lab must outlive its founders. Build for continuity, not dependence."
2. Community Governance
Decision-making process:
- Major decisions require consensus, not fiat
- Stakeholder input (researchers, users, affected communities)
- Transparent reasoning for decisions
- Mechanisms for reversing mistakes
Principle:
"Those affected by decisions should have voice in making them."
3. Financial Independence
Funding strategy:
- Diversified funding (government, foundations, philanthropy)
- No single funder controls direction
- Reject funding with unacceptable strings attached
- Build endowment for long-term sustainability
Principle:
"He who pays the piper calls the tune. Diversify or be captured."
4. Academic Freedom
Research autonomy:
- Researchers pursue questions they find important
- No top-down project dictation (except minimum collaborative expectations)
- Protection from external pressure (political, commercial)
- Support for risky, long-term, unfashionable research
Principle:
"Breakthrough ideas don't come from committees. Protect individual curiosity."
Technical Commitments
1. Reproducibility as Standard
All computational work:
- Runs via Morphogen (deterministic, verifiable)
- Full provenance tracked (GenesisGraph)
- Published with reproduction materials (code, data, documentation)
- Third-party verification enabled
Principle:
"If it's not reproducible, it's not science."
2. Accessibility
All systems designed for:
- Progressive disclosure (simple for beginners, powerful for experts)
- Excellent documentation (tutorials, references, examples)
- Multi-modal interfaces (CLI, GUI, conversational)
- Inclusion of users with disabilities (WCAG compliance)
Principle:
"Inaccessible infrastructure is failed infrastructure."
3. Privacy and Security
Data handling:
- Privacy-preserving by default
- Minimal data collection (only what's necessary)
- Secure storage and transmission
- User control over their data
Principle:
"Privacy is not a feature—it's a right."
4. Interoperability
All systems:
- Use open standards (Pantheon IR)
- Provide well-documented APIs
- Play well with existing tools
- Avoid vendor lock-in
Principle:
"Walled gardens are prisons. Build bridges, not moats."
Relationship to External Stakeholders
1. Government
We commit to:
- Collaborating on public infrastructure challenges
- Providing policy analysis and decision support
- Respecting democratic governance and accountability
- Refusing work that undermines democratic institutions
We reject:
- Authoritarianism and anti-democratic uses
- Surveillance infrastructure
- Weaponization of semantic systems
- Regulatory capture or undue influence
2. Industry
We commit to:
- Partnerships that advance public good
- Knowledge transfer and technology licensing (on open terms)
- Training workforce for emerging infrastructure needs
- Accepting funding that doesn't compromise mission
We reject:
- Privatization of public infrastructure
- Trade secrets in critical systems
- Profit maximization at expense of safety or equity
- "Innovation" that concentrates power
3. Academia
We commit to:
- Publishing in open-access venues
- Sharing datasets and methods
- Mentoring students and early-career researchers
- Collaborating across institutions and disciplines
We reject:
- Prestige hoarding
- Exploitative labor practices (grad students, postdocs)
- Pay-to-publish predatory journals
- Academic insularity and jargon-heavy gatekeeping
4. Civil Society
We commit to:
- Public engagement and education
- Responding to community-identified needs
- Participatory design processes
- Accountability to affected communities
We reject:
- Top-down "solutionism" without community input
- Technology as savior narratives
- Ignoring distributional impacts (who benefits, who is harmed?)
- Engaging only with elites, not grassroots
Failure Modes and Safeguards
Failure Mode 1: Mission Drift
Risk: SIL drifts from public-serving infrastructure toward commercial products or narrow academic research.
Safeguards:
- Regular mission review (annual self-assessment)
- Stakeholder feedback (are we serving civilization?)
- Governance checks (board, community input)
- Public commitments (this manifesto as anchor)
Failure Mode 2: Capture
Risk: External actors (funders, government, industry) exert undue influence over SIL's direction.
Safeguards:
- Funding diversification (no single source > 30%)
- Financial reserves (operate 2 years without new funding)
- Governance independence (external board members, but no control by funders)
- Public transparency (disclose all funding sources and terms)
Failure Mode 3: Insularity
Risk: SIL becomes insular, disconnected from real-world needs and diverse perspectives.
Safeguards:
- SIL-Civilization division (ensures grounding in application domains)
- Community engagement programs (workshops, partnerships, outreach)
- Diverse hiring (backgrounds, disciplines, demographics)
- Participatory design (involve stakeholders in system design)
Failure Mode 4: Technological Solutionism
Risk: SIL falls into "technology can solve everything" trap, ignoring social, political, and economic dimensions.
Safeguards:
- Interdisciplinary team (not just CS; include STS, ethics, policy, domain experts)
- Human Systems Steward and Ethical Guardian archetypes in founding team
- Sociotechnical perspective (technology never exists in vacuum)
- Humility about limits of technical interventions
Failure Mode 5: Burnout and Turnover
Risk: Intense work culture leads to burnout, high turnover, loss of institutional knowledge.
Safeguards:
- Sustainable work expectations (no glorification of overwork)
- Sabbaticals and mental health support
- Knowledge documentation (systems outlive individuals)
- Culture of care (peer support, mentorship, community)
Accountability Mechanisms
1. Annual Public Report
Contents:
- Research output (papers, software, deployments)
- Financial transparency (income, expenses, reserves)
- Community engagement metrics
- Self-assessment against this manifesto
- Failures and lessons learned
Principle:
"Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Report publicly, honestly."
2. Ombudsperson
Role:
- Independent voice for concerns, complaints, grievances
- Protects whistleblowers
- Investigates allegations of misconduct
- Reports to board and community
Principle:
"Power without accountability is tyranny. Institutionalize dissent."
3. External Advisory Board
Composition:
- Diverse stakeholders (academia, government, civil society, affected communities)
- No financial interest in SIL
- Reviews major decisions, provides guidance
- Publicly reports on whether SIL adheres to manifesto
Principle:
"We need critical friends, not cheerleaders."
4. Community Input
Mechanisms:
- Open forums (quarterly town halls)
- Public comment periods for major decisions
- User surveys and feedback channels
- Participatory design processes
Principle:
"Listen more than you speak."
Tensions and Trade-offs
Tension 1: Openness vs. Safety
Openness: All code, data, and methods should be public.
Safety: Some capabilities could be misused if fully open.
Our approach:
- Default to openness
- Red-team for potential harms
- Engage experts in security, ethics, policy
- Graduated disclosure if necessary (but document reasoning publicly)
Tension 2: Rigor vs. Speed
Rigor: Reproducibility and verification take time.
Speed: Urgent civilizational challenges require rapid response.
Our approach:
- Build infrastructure for speed (Morphogen caching enables rapid iteration)
- Don't sacrifice correctness for urgency (wrong answers fast are worse than slow careful work)
- Communicate uncertainty (preliminary results flagged as such)
Tension 3: Autonomy vs. Collaboration
Autonomy: Researchers need freedom to pursue ideas.
Collaboration: SIL's mission requires coordinated efforts.
Our approach:
- 70% individual research, 30% collaborative obligations (sprints, joint projects)
- Protect deep work time (Quiet Zone, no-meeting blocks)
- Voluntary collaboration encouraged, mandatory minimized
Tension 4: Excellence vs. Inclusivity
Excellence: High standards for research output.
Inclusivity: Lowering barriers to participation.
Our approach:
- Reject false dichotomy (inclusivity enhances excellence)
- Mentorship and onboarding for newcomers
- Multiple contribution pathways (not everyone needs to publish papers)
- Measure excellence broadly (not just citations)
Inspiration and Precedents
Historical Models
Bell Labs (1925-1983)
- Long-term research freedom
- Mix of basic and applied work
- Collaborative culture
- Massive civilizational impact (transistor, information theory, Unix, C)
Lessons: Freedom + resources + collaboration = breakthrough innovation
Xerox PARC (1970-present)
- Visionary research (GUI, OOP, Ethernet, laser printing)
- Failed to translate research into products (Xerox didn't capitalize)
Lessons: Research excellence isn't enough; need pathways to deployment (hence SIL-Civilization division)
Media Lab (1985-present)
- Interdisciplinary research
- Industry partnerships
- Public engagement and demos
Lessons: Bridge academia and practice, make work tangible
Santa Fe Institute (1984-present)
- Complex systems research
- Small, focused, collaborative
- Long-term thinking
Lessons: Depth over scale, sustained inquiry into hard problems
Contemporary Inspirations
Internet Archive
- Preservation as public service
- Open access to knowledge
- Mission-driven, not profit-driven
Wikimedia Foundation
- Community governance
- Open knowledge
- Global, multilingual, inclusive
Protocol Labs
- Open-source infrastructure (IPFS, Filecoin)
- Long-term vision (distributed web)
- Mix of research and deployment
Conclusion
This manifesto is not aspirational—it is operational.
It defines:
- What we value (long-term, open, inclusive, transparent, collaborative, rigorous, humane)
- How we work (reproducible, accessible, privacy-preserving, interoperable)
- Who we serve (civilization, not shareholders)
- How we govern (distributed, community-engaged, accountable)
- How we avoid failure (safeguards against capture, insularity, burnout)
This manifesto is binding. When SIL deviates, we must:
1. Acknowledge the deviation publicly
2. Explain the reasoning
3. Correct course or revise manifesto transparently
This manifesto evolves. As SIL matures, we will:
- Learn from mistakes
- Incorporate community feedback
- Update principles while preserving core values
- Version and document changes
This manifesto is a covenant—with each other, with our users, with future generations.
We are building infrastructure that will outlive us. It must be built on principles that outlive us too.
Stewardship is not ownership. It is care, responsibility, and the humility to know we are temporary custodians of something larger than ourselves.
That is the spirit in which we build.
Related Documents:
- SIL_MANIFESTO.md - Founding vision
- SIL_PRINCIPLES.md - Core operating principles
- ../meta/DEDICATION.md - Intellectual foundations