solo.istandClaude Fable 5.1
05f4e88867
Stdlib-only pipeline for the pre-meeting braindump: CryptPad Form CSV in, review.md + synthesis.json out. Two model stages (tag atomic points with verbatim quotes, cluster into themes/novel/dissent) wrapped in deterministic Python that verifies every quote against the source and computes counts from item ids, so the model never writes the final document. Defaults to tinfoil/glm-5.3 with reasoning_effort=low: without it the model spent the whole 8000-token budget on hidden reasoning and returned nothing (probed 2026-10-19; findings in README). Refuses non-TEE models without a flag. Content-hash cache so prompt tuning reruns are free. Offline unittest suite with a fake gateway; smoke-tested live on 5 synthetic responses for ~$0.03. Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5.1 <noreply@anthropic.com>
243 lines
10 KiB
Markdown
243 lines
10 KiB
Markdown
# Braindump synthesis
|
|
|
|
_Generated 2026-10-19 from sample.csv · 12 responses · 71 points · 2 themes · model `tinfoil/glm-5.3`_
|
|
|
|
Counts below are computed from the extracted points, not estimated by the model. Quotes are verbatim from the responses. The full responses are in the appendix.
|
|
|
|
## Priorities (pick up to 3)
|
|
|
|
_12 of 12 responses answered._
|
|
|
|
- ████████████ **4** · privacy
|
|
- ████████████ **4** · governance and participation
|
|
- █████████ **3** · pricing and fairness
|
|
- █████████ **3** · docs and onboarding
|
|
- █████████ **3** · API and developer tooling
|
|
- █████████ **3** · model choice
|
|
- █████████ **3** · community and chat
|
|
- ██████ **2** · owning our own infrastructure
|
|
- ██████ **2** · green energy
|
|
|
|
## Themes
|
|
|
|
| # | Theme | People | Points | For / Against |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| 1 | Own the stack | 7 | 36 | 36 / 0 |
|
|
| 2 | Institutional access | 6 | 35 | 35 / 0 |
|
|
|
|
### 1. Own the stack
|
|
|
|
_7 of 12 people · 36 idea_
|
|
|
|
Self-hosting versus buying tokens.
|
|
|
|
Points raised:
|
|
|
|
- point about Q6 from r06
|
|
- point about Q1 from r07
|
|
- point about Q2 from r07
|
|
- point about Q3 from r07
|
|
- point about Q4 from r07
|
|
- point about Q5 from r07
|
|
- point about Q6 from r07
|
|
- point about Q1 from r08
|
|
- point about Q2 from r08
|
|
- point about Q3 from r08
|
|
- point about Q4 from r08
|
|
- point about Q5 from r08
|
|
- point about Q6 from r08
|
|
- point about Q7 from r08
|
|
- point about Q1 from r09
|
|
- point about Q2 from r09
|
|
- point about Q3 from r09
|
|
- point about Q4 from r09
|
|
- point about Q5 from r09
|
|
- point about Q1 from r10
|
|
- point about Q2 from r10
|
|
- point about Q3 from r10
|
|
- point about Q5 from r10
|
|
- point about Q6 from r10
|
|
- point about Q1 from r11
|
|
- point about Q2 from r11
|
|
- point about Q3 from r11
|
|
- point about Q4 from r11
|
|
- point about Q5 from r11
|
|
- point about Q6 from r11
|
|
- point about Q1 from r12
|
|
- point about Q2 from r12
|
|
- point about Q3 from r12
|
|
- point about Q4 from r12
|
|
- point about Q5 from r12
|
|
- point about Q7 from r12
|
|
|
|
> "I disagree with adding providers that" (r06, Q6)
|
|
> "I run a small nonprofit and" (r07, Q1)
|
|
> "Governance nerd. I barely use the" (r08, Q1)
|
|
> "Needed an API for a side" (r09, Q1)
|
|
|
|
### 2. Institutional access
|
|
|
|
_6 of 12 people · 35 idea_
|
|
|
|
Group and org accounts.
|
|
|
|
Points raised:
|
|
|
|
- point about Q1 from r01
|
|
- point about Q2 from r01
|
|
- point about Q3 from r01
|
|
- point about Q4 from r01
|
|
- point about Q5 from r01
|
|
- point about Q6 from r01
|
|
- point about Q1 from r02
|
|
- point about Q2 from r02
|
|
- point about Q3 from r02
|
|
- point about Q4 from r02
|
|
- point about Q5 from r02
|
|
- point about Q6 from r02
|
|
- point about Q7 from r02
|
|
- point about Q1 from r03
|
|
- point about Q2 from r03
|
|
- point about Q3 from r03
|
|
- point about Q4 from r03
|
|
- point about Q5 from r03
|
|
- point about Q6 from r03
|
|
- point about Q1 from r04
|
|
- point about Q2 from r04
|
|
- point about Q3 from r04
|
|
- point about Q5 from r04
|
|
- point about Q1 from r05
|
|
- point about Q2 from r05
|
|
- point about Q3 from r05
|
|
- point about Q4 from r05
|
|
- point about Q5 from r05
|
|
- point about Q6 from r05
|
|
- point about Q7 from r05
|
|
- point about Q1 from r06
|
|
- point about Q2 from r06
|
|
- point about Q3 from r06
|
|
- point about Q4 from r06
|
|
- point about Q5 from r06
|
|
|
|
> "Privacy. I wanted an AI I" (r01, Q1)
|
|
> "Green energy mostly. I teach and" (r02, Q1)
|
|
> "Curiosity about co-op governance. I use" (r03, Q1)
|
|
> "A friend invited me. I mostly" (r04, Q1)
|
|
|
|
## Standout ideas
|
|
|
|
_Raised by one person, specific enough to be worth a look._
|
|
|
|
- **point about Q1 from r01** (idea)
|
|
"Privacy. I wanted an AI I" (r01, Q1)
|
|
|
|
## Notable dissent
|
|
|
|
_Places where people pull in different directions. Worth time in the meeting._
|
|
|
|
- **Own the stack**: Cost doubts.
|
|
> "Nice work on the dashboard." (r12, Q7)
|
|
|
|
## Open questions for the group
|
|
|
|
1. Institutional tier? _(from r01)_
|
|
2. Bare string question
|
|
|
|
## Appendix: all responses, verbatim
|
|
|
|
### What drew you to the co-op, and what do you use it for today?
|
|
|
|
- **r01:** Privacy. I wanted an AI I could use for client work without feeding a big vendor. Mostly chat, some API from scripts.
|
|
- **r02:** Green energy mostly. I teach and wanted something I could recommend to students with a straight face.
|
|
- **r03:** Curiosity about co-op governance. I use the API from a small writing tool I maintain.
|
|
- **r04:** A friend invited me. I mostly use the chat for drafting emails.
|
|
- **r05:** Wanted to support a cooperative alternative. I use it daily for coding help.
|
|
- **r06:** Privacy and the TEE story. Chat only.
|
|
- **r07:** I run a small nonprofit and we needed shared AI access we could justify ethically.
|
|
- **r08:** Governance nerd. I barely use the models; I joined for the experiment.
|
|
- **r09:** Needed an API for a side project and liked the values.
|
|
- **r10:** Climate reasons.
|
|
- **r11:** Wanted to try open-weight models without setting up my own box. Mostly chat and a bit of API.
|
|
- **r12:** Someone mentioned it at a Metagov call.
|
|
|
|
### Ideas. What should the co-op build, try, or offer next?
|
|
|
|
- **r01:** A shared prompt library members can contribute to. Also a Matrix bot that answers questions about the docs.
|
|
- **r02:** Classroom or group accounts: one payment, several seats, shared budget.
|
|
- **r03:** An institutional or app-partner membership so projects like mine can buy inference for their users through the co-op instead of each user joining separately.
|
|
- **r04:** Voice mode on the phone app.
|
|
- **r05:** Self-host at least one open model on our own hardware so we are not just reselling other people's APIs.
|
|
- **r06:** Private web search inside the enclave instead of our own SearXNG.
|
|
- **r07:** Group accounts with a shared budget and an admin who can see spend per seat.
|
|
- **r08:** Publish a monthly financial and usage report and discuss it on Loomio.
|
|
- **r09:** An Anthropic-compatible /v1/messages endpoint that is actually documented and tested, so Claude-style clients just work.
|
|
- **r10:** Default every new member to the greenest model, not the fastest.
|
|
- **r11:** Image generation in the chat picker, not hidden behind an integration button.
|
|
- **r12:** A quarterly braindump like this one, and a public roadmap page built from it.
|
|
|
|
### Wants. What would make membership more valuable to you personally?
|
|
|
|
- **r01:** A cheaper tier for light users; I barely touch my allowance most months.
|
|
- **r02:** Being able to see the energy and emissions per conversation, not just tokens.
|
|
- **r03:** Stable model names. When tinfoil/glm-5-3-flash disappeared my app broke.
|
|
- **r04:** Honestly it is fine as is.
|
|
- **r05:** Higher allowance for people who pay more; the flat $15 cap makes paying extra feel pointless.
|
|
- **r06:** Nothing specific.
|
|
- **r07:** An invoice I can hand to our bookkeeper instead of an Open Collective receipt.
|
|
- **r08:** Real decision rights, not advisory votes.
|
|
- **r09:** Per-key spend limits so one script cannot burn my whole month.
|
|
- **r10:** A badge or summary of emissions avoided versus a mainstream provider.
|
|
- **r11:** Longer memory across chats.
|
|
- **r12:** Knowing what other members are working on; a members directory people opt into.
|
|
|
|
### Needs. What is missing, broken, or in your way right now?
|
|
|
|
- **r01:** The chat loses my place on mobile when I switch apps. Also the model picker names are confusing (dotted vs dashed slugs).
|
|
- **r02:** Onboarding email landed in spam for two of my students. The email-must-match rule tripped one of them.
|
|
- **r03:** No deprecation notice period for models. No status page.
|
|
- **r05:** Tool calling is flaky on some models and there is no doc saying which ones support it.
|
|
- **r06:** The chat is slow to start on voice sometimes.
|
|
- **r07:** The dashboard shows my usage but not my organization's.
|
|
- **r08:** The charter still says decisions are not binding.
|
|
- **r09:** Budget exceeded errors arrive mid-stream with no warning beforehand.
|
|
- **r11:** Image models in the picker caused 500 errors and then got removed with no explanation.
|
|
- **r12:** Matrix invites arrived before I knew what Matrix was. A one-page explainer would help.
|
|
|
|
### Goals. Where should the co-op be a year from now?
|
|
|
|
- **r01:** Fifty members, real elections, and at least one model we host ourselves.
|
|
- **r02:** A recognized option for universities and nonprofits, with an institutional tier.
|
|
- **r03:** A documented SLA-ish commitment, even an informal one, and a changelog members can subscribe to.
|
|
- **r04:** More members so it keeps existing.
|
|
- **r05:** Our own GPU box, even a small one, and a path to more.
|
|
- **r06:** Keep it small and trustworthy. Growth is not a goal for me.
|
|
- **r07:** An institutional tier with clear terms and pricing.
|
|
- **r08:** A functioning member-elected board and a budget members approve.
|
|
- **r09:** A developer-friendly gateway people choose on merit, not only on values.
|
|
- **r10:** Carbon accounting published per month.
|
|
- **r11:** More models, including vision, at the same price.
|
|
- **r12:** A community that knows itself, not just a service.
|
|
|
|
### Dissent. What worries you, what do you disagree with, or what are we getting wrong?
|
|
|
|
- **r01:** I worry we are spreading across too many providers. Three providers is already hard to explain to a new member.
|
|
- **r02:** Not dissent exactly, but the Loomio threads are long and I cannot keep up.
|
|
- **r03:** I think the terms forbidding any redistribution of access will block exactly the kind of mission-aligned projects we say we want.
|
|
- **r05:** Self-hosting will cost more than buying tokens and we should be honest about that before voting for it.
|
|
- **r06:** I disagree with adding providers that are only policy-private. It dilutes the one thing that made me join.
|
|
- **r07:** The pay-what-you-can model is lovely but I suspect it is not covering costs. Show us the numbers.
|
|
- **r08:** We keep adding features before we have governance. Build the decision process first.
|
|
- **r10:** Tinfoil is not green and we should say so more plainly on the models page.
|
|
- **r11:** I do not think self-hosting is worth it at our size.
|
|
|
|
### Anything else?
|
|
|
|
- **r02:** Thank you for doing this.
|
|
- **r05:** Happy to help with ops.
|
|
- **r08:** Could we do these braindumps every quarter?
|
|
- **r12:** Nice work on the dashboard.
|
|
|
|
## Processing notes
|
|
|
|
3 extracted point(s) were discarded because their quote could not be verified against the source text or they referenced an unknown response.
|