Help needed! I’ve been tinkering with an interactive “periodic table” for AI in government for a course I’m developing. Same organizing idea: where a component sits should tell you something about its properties.
Most frameworks sort AI by what it can do. Useful, but it often skips the question government teams trip over in practice: what needs to be true, institutionally, for a given component to be deployed without it going sideways. So I tried a different map.
The grid places 21 AI components along two axes. One is functional (input, intelligence, memory, action, control). The other is capacity tier: the institutional readiness required to govern that component responsibly. I also tag each component by how directly it touches decisions, whether it is advisory, assisted, or deterministic. Only one lands in the last category, and that asymmetry is deliberate.
This is very much unfinished. Some labels may be wrong. Some placements are arguable. The design will change. That is why I’m sharing the poster version now, before I get attached to it.
If you take a look, I’m looking for first-glance reactions: what feels missing, what feels misclassified, and what feels confusing
(🔗 in the comments).
P.S. The grid format was inspired by Martin Keen framework for mapping AI elements. The row logic and framing are different, but the visual organization is his, so thanks Martin!