Back to collectionPi’s personhood and local-AI plans require separate permissions
Verifying a person is different from authorizing an application or accepting a machine’s contribution.
Pi-related discussion describes real-person verification for third-party use and a cadence of utility releases. A related June 28 account describes a local AI-hosting beta alongside sign-in and personhood proof. These are reported product directions, not evidence that every third-party integration is available or that contributed compute has been validated. A personhood check, an application’s permission to act and a node’s software version establish different things.
The useful integration boundary keeps those records separate. Third parties need only the information necessary for their purpose, with expiry and recovery paths; proving a real participant need not make biometric details public. A local host also needs a way to identify what software contributed work and what changes after an update. Identity can make participation accountable without automatically authorizing funds or treating every machine output as valid.