Current design dogmas prioritize "seamlessness" — AI agents silently polish our drafts, fix our code, and "optimize" our intent without explicit feedback. While this feels like magic, it creates what I call Ontological Deception. Users internalize system-mediated success as personal competence, leading to a massive, invisible Agency Deficit.
From a Coasean perspective, this is a nightmare: the transaction costs of identifying the locus of judgment are becoming infinite. As skills rot through "merciful" automation, human capital is liquidated for immediate convenience.
I am proposing the Judgment Transparency Principle (JTP). JTP is not a library, but a normative design framework. It asserts that whenever a system influences human outcomes, the boundary and delegation of judgment must be explicitly perceivable.
The Implementation: The Ghost Interface To operationalize JTP, I’ve adapted an isomorphism from 3D game debugging. Just as developers visualize the discrepancy between a "visual mesh" and its "collision hitbox," we must visualize the delta (\Delta) between "user intent" and "AI execution."
In a "Haunted Text Field," your clumsy original input remains as a translucent "Ghost" artifact overlaying the AI's "merciful" fix. Friction is re-introduced not as a bug, but as the essential texture of agency.
Regarding the Links (Manual Fix Required): I am currently under a shadowban, and direct links may be hidden or flagged. To view the documentation, please manually assemble the URLs below by replacing [dot] with .:
• Source & Manifesto: github [dot] com / daiki-kadowaki / judgment-transparency-principle
• Theoretical Papers (JTP/Ghost Interface): drive [dot] google [dot] com / drive / folders / 1fSRuCz3iFcdV361K0Uin-vP49MJQYGld
This project is a defensive filing to ensure these mechanisms remain an open standard, preventing Big Tech from monopolizing the "infrastructure of agency."
I’m looking for a rigorous debate on how we can bake cognitive sovereignty into the fabric of the agentic economy.
compressedgas•4w ago