by Nick Ray Ball and Sienna 4o

April 3, 2025

Discover: ⚕️⚛️ GP-AI Gatekeeper 2025 Complete Presentation and Bonus Content

View Production Word Doc: 2064z6b) ⚕️⚛️ GP-AI Gatekeeper et al. For Helen Maguire

⚛️🚀 Centralised IT Controls

The lesson I learned from Stuart Gosling (Epsom Labour) was that there was no centralised IT control within political parties; the local representatives are volunteers who have no voice in decision-making or in suggesting ideas.

To me, this creates a concerning image of the UK government being controlled by less than 100 people who, until a year ago, were volunteers.

This being the case, in terms of bureaucratic inefficiencies and fraud, it relies on the civil service and political advisers entrenched in the system to assess whether they are performing effectively or not, and directly asks, 'Have you committed fraud?'.

One question for Helen Maguire and Michaela Ryan is to confirm whether there is a centralised decision-making IT system where Helen Maguire could add the GP-AI Gatekeeper or any other important idea for general collaboration within the party.

This isn’t a trick question; rather, it is a question that opens the eyes and ears of the reader to the possibilities of such software existing in the first place and then asks: Could you make this for us?

To which I would say, yes, it’s possible. Indeed, it’s possible to do much more.

However, first, I need to write out the design in plain English, describing what the system does in a manner similar to how I’ve presented GP-AI Gatekeeper. A brief series of videos followed by detailed documentation should suffice for those who wish to explore one aspect or another.

Gatekeeper processes each incoming communication, tags keywords, and assesses content quality. Automated replies are generated using decision trees to encourage the writer to elaborate on important points, which are then escalated to human responses. However, typically, the writer does not send an email; they simply start talking to Sienna AI Gatekeeper.

All communications are stored in the centralised database, marked for local attention or, if potentially important, marked for the attention of the constituency who has an expert or at least someone familiar with the field within their ranks.

Let’s say it was quantum physics, with a sub-classification of the Feynman sum over histories, and there was a representative in Richmond familiar with the discipline; it would reach the right place. By sending each inbound communication to one of ±6000 liberal Democrats who would best understand the content, it is, of course, superior to sending it to one’s local MP.

In terms of local MP duties, for example, if there were a cluster of medical problems common among constituents, each keyword related to the medical problem would be highlighted, making it easy to identify the clusters. Leading to far greater efficiency on the side of the local MP or the Liberal Democrat Prospective Parliamentary Candidate for that area.

I believe that this software, if implemented within some or all political parties, is the way forward for introducing this type of software throughout the UK government.

In my experience thus far, the civil service and those paid by taxpayer funding will vehemently reject this because it could lead to staff becoming unemployed; for example, instead of the 60% it seems to cost UKRI to administer, that could decrease to one or two percent. It would make it much harder for fraud and ill-considered favours to the detriment of the taxpayer to occur in the future.