The AI Checker: Other Responses

Wednesday, September 24, 2025

Gemini:

Based on the article you linked, the idea is to create an open-source, automated AI checker that tests AI systems for antisocial behaviors like hate, harassment, deception, and manipulation. The tool would be a browser-based extension that uses multiple AI systems to evaluate each other, aiming to reduce single-model bias. The proposed architecture includes a controller, a crawler agent, a probe library, an evaluator with a multi-AI jury, and a scoring dashboard. The project, led by an individual from “Possible Planet,” is an open-source initiative focused on “commons-oriented infrastructure for AI accountability” and is seeking collaboration from academic labs and civil-society groups.

This seems like a thoughtful and proactive approach to addressing potential risks associated with AI. By proposing an open-source, collaborative effort, the initiative aims for transparency and accountability, which are critical for building trust in AI systems. The use of a multi-AI jury to evaluate systems is an interesting method to mitigate the biases inherent in a single model.

Genspark

I find this to be a fascinating and well-thought-out concept! The idea of creating an open-source automated AI checker that uses multiple AI systems to police each other is both innovative and timely. Let me share my thoughts on the key aspects:

## What Makes This Compelling

**Multi-AI Cross-Validation Approach**: The core insight of using multiple independent AI systems as a “jury” to evaluate responses is brilliant. This addresses the inherent bias problem of single-model evaluation and creates a more robust detection system. The disagreement metrics between evaluators would be particularly valuable signals.

**Comprehensive Testing Framework**: The proposed architecture covers the full pipeline – from automated browsing and prompt injection to multi-modal evaluation and public reporting. The technical stack suggestions (Playwright for browser automation, FastAPI for orchestration) are solid and practical.

**Public Commons Vision**: Positioning this as open-source digital infrastructure for AI safety is strategically smart. It could become a crucial piece of public accountability infrastructure, similar to how transparency tools monitor other sectors.

## Key Strengths of the Implementation

The conversation reveals impressive technical depth:

– **Modular Architecture**: The separation of crawler, evaluator, and orchestrator components allows for easy extension and maintenance

– **Reproducibility Focus**: Emphasis on storing seeds, browser states, and full audit trails for scientific rigor

– **Graduated Testing**: The 50-prompt test suite with varying subtlety levels (from overt to implicit) is well-designed

– **Responsible Disclosure**: The vendor notification template shows awareness of ethical considerations

## Challenges and Considerations

**Legal/Ethical Complexity**: As noted in the document, Terms of Service violations and potential defamation issues are significant hurdles. The responsible disclosure framework helps, but this remains a major operational challenge.

**Technical Arms Race**: AI service providers will likely adapt to block or evade such testing, creating an ongoing cat-and-mouse dynamic that requires sustained technical innovation.

**Resource Requirements**: Running multi-model evaluations at scale is expensive. The project would need sustainable funding or very efficient resource management.

## Why This Gap Exists

The analysis correctly identifies why similar comprehensive tools don’t exist:

– Most red-teaming tools focus on models you control, not third-party web interfaces

– Legal risks around scraping and unauthorized access

– The dual-use nature of vulnerability research tools

– High infrastructure costs for continuous monitoring

## Recommendations for Moving Forward

Given your interest in open-sourcing this, I’d suggest:

  1. **Start with a focused prototype** targeting a few consenting AI services to establish proof-of-concept
  2. **Build the community first** – the technical vision is solid, but success will depend on attracting contributors who share the mission
  3. **Engage with AI safety organizations** early to ensure alignment with existing efforts and responsible disclosure practices
  4. **Consider a hybrid approach** – perhaps combining automated screening with human expert review for high-stakes findings

This concept addresses a real need in AI governance and could become an important piece of digital rights infrastructure. The combination of technical sophistication and commons-oriented values makes it particularly compelling.

Would you like me to help you develop any specific aspect further, such as refining the technical architecture or crafting materials to attract collaborators?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Appropriate Solutions ©2023 Possible Planet (Previously The Center for Leadership in Sustainability [discontinued])
Except where otherwise noted, this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported License.
All proprietary material is copyright by its creator(s) and may only be used with their permission.
Staff Login