pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.15791 · v1 · pith:KPZDMOU7new · submitted 2026-05-15 · 💻 cs.NI · cs.SY· eess.SY

The Shared Prosperity Internet

Juan A. Cabrera , Pit Hofmann , Jonas Schulz , Frederic Benken , Hrjehor Mark , Giang T. Nguyen , Holger Boche , Frank H. P. Fitzek This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-19 19:30 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.NI cs.SYeess.SY
keywords shared prosperity internetpost-shannon communicationgoal-oriented communicationanticipatory decision-makingbeyond-digital computingnetwork architecturesustainable aiaccessible automation
0
0 comments X

The pith

The Shared Prosperity Internet maps physical constraints from Shannon, Landauer, Turing and Einstein to network design principles for broad AI access.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper proposes the Shared Prosperity Internet as a network-computing architecture that makes automation and AI benefits widely available by grounding the system in physical limits. It translates constraints on information transmission, energy use, computability and signal speed into three design principles of trustworthiness, sustainability and technological sovereignty. These principles shape three technical pillars: goal-oriented communication that sends only task-essential data, anticipatory actions with correction mechanisms for effective negative latency, and selection of energy-optimal computing substrates. The ideas are applied to remote pupil teaching, robot instruction and elder care, with concrete metrics proposed to track outcomes such as energy per task and privacy indicators. A reader would care because the mapping aims to steer network evolution toward inclusive and resource-efficient technology rather than unchecked growth.

Core claim

The Shared Prosperity Internet (SPI) is a network-computing architecture that makes the benefits of automation and Artificial Intelligence (AI) broadly accessible to the society. To ground its design, this paper maps the physical constraints of Shannon, Landauer, Turing, and Einstein to three design principles: trustworthiness, sustainability, and technological sovereignty, and maps them into three technical pillars: i) post-Shannon, goal-oriented communication that transmits only what the task requires; ii) anticipatory decision-making (negative latency) with confidence-bounded pre-action and correction; and iii) beyond-digital computing that selects energy-optimal substrates under deadline

What carries the argument

The direct mapping of Shannon, Landauer, Turing and Einstein physical constraints onto the design principles of trustworthiness, sustainability and technological sovereignty that generate the three technical pillars.

If this is right

  • Post-Shannon goal-oriented communication transmits only the information required by the specific task.
  • Anticipatory decision-making with bounded corrections produces effective negative latency.
  • Beyond-digital computing chooses the lowest-energy substrate that meets computability and deadline constraints.
  • Measurable outcomes include latency decomposition, bits per event, energy and CO2 per task, plus safety and privacy indicators.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same mapping could be tested in smart-grid or environmental-monitoring networks to check whether sustainability gains appear outside the listed use cases.
  • Practical limits on how far anticipatory actions can be taken reliably might emerge from experiments in cyber-physical systems.
  • The emphasis on technological sovereignty could connect to policy questions about data localization and open-source hardware choices.

Load-bearing premise

The physical constraints can be mapped directly and usefully to the three design principles in a way that produces the three technical pillars without further unstated assumptions on implementation.

What would settle it

Building a prototype SPI for remote robot teaching or elder care and measuring that it does not reduce energy per task or bits per event compared with conventional networks would show the mapping does not deliver the claimed gains.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.15791 by Frank H. P. Fitzek, Frederic Benken, Giang T. Nguyen, Holger Boche, Hrjehor Mark, Jonas Schulz, Juan A. Cabrera, Pit Hofmann.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The five societal challenges. is not possible, can alternative computing models, such as a Blum-Shub-Smale machine, be potential solutions? D. Einstein’s Limit The SPI faces a hard physical wall: nothing can propagate faster than the speed of light. This implies an irreducible end-to-end latency for any interaction that depends on information exchange over distance. For many SPI use cases, such as teleoper… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Worldwide data generation over the years (left); worldwide energy production and consumption for state of the art (SotA), SotA with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Negative latency in human-machine interaction. As a person reaches to grasp an object, the system interprets muscle activity to detect [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: SPI use cases: Remote teaching for pupils (left); Remote teaching of cyber-physical systems or robots (middle); Care for elderly [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The Shared Prosperity Internet (SPI) is a network-computing architecture that makes the benefits of automation and Artificial Intelligence (AI) broadly accessible to the society. To ground its design, this paper maps the physical constraints of Shannon, Landauer, Turing, and Einstein to three design principles: trustworthiness, sustainability, and technological sovereignty, and maps them into three technical pillars: i) post-Shannon, goal-oriented communication that transmits only what the task requires; ii) anticipatory decision-making ("negative latency") with confidence-bounded pre-action and correction; and iii) beyond-digital computing that selects energy-optimal substrates under deadline and computability constraints. The SPI is grounded in three societal use cases: remote teaching for pupils, remote teaching of robots and cyber-physical systems, and elder care. Furthermore, this paper defines measurable outcomes for an SPI, including latency decomposition, bits per event, energy and CO2 per task, safety and privacy indicators, and robustness.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper introduces the Shared Prosperity Internet (SPI) as a network-computing architecture that makes automation and AI benefits broadly accessible. It maps the physical constraints of Shannon, Landauer, Turing, and Einstein onto three design principles (trustworthiness, sustainability, technological sovereignty) which in turn yield three technical pillars: post-Shannon goal-oriented communication, anticipatory decision-making with negative latency and confidence-bounded pre-action, and beyond-digital computing that selects energy-optimal substrates. The architecture is grounded in three use cases (remote teaching for pupils, remote teaching of robots/cyber-physical systems, elder care) and defines measurable outcomes including latency decomposition, bits per event, energy/CO2 per task, safety/privacy indicators, and robustness.

Significance. If the claimed mappings were supported by explicit derivations and shown to produce the listed pillars as necessary or minimal responses to the cited physical bounds, the work could provide a useful conceptual bridge between information-theoretic limits and societal-scale network design. At present the contribution is primarily declarative; the absence of intermediate steps, equations, or constraint-specific arguments reduces its technical novelty and limits its utility as a foundation for subsequent engineering or measurement work.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the central claim that the four physical constraints map directly onto the three design principles and produce exactly the three listed pillars is asserted at a high level but supplies no intermediate logical steps, equations, or constraint-specific arguments demonstrating why these pillars are necessary or minimal rather than alternative architectures that could satisfy the same bounds.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract and use-case section: the design principles are defined in terms of the physical constraints and then used to define the pillars; without explicit reduction steps it is unclear whether any pillar reduces to a restatement of the input constraints or to quantities fitted to the three use cases.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract lists measurable outcomes but does not indicate how they would be computed or validated against the pillars; a short table or example calculation would improve clarity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback on our manuscript. We address each major comment below and have revised the paper to improve clarity on the conceptual mappings while remaining faithful to its architectural focus.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the central claim that the four physical constraints map directly onto the three design principles and produce exactly the three listed pillars is asserted at a high level but supplies no intermediate logical steps, equations, or constraint-specific arguments demonstrating why these pillars are necessary or minimal rather than alternative architectures that could satisfy the same bounds.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the abstract presents the mappings concisely. The manuscript frames the pillars as a proposed coherent response to the constraints for societal-scale applications rather than claiming they are strictly necessary or minimal. In revision we have expanded the introduction with constraint-specific reasoning steps (e.g., how Shannon's limit motivates goal-oriented rather than bit-exact transmission) while clarifying that alternative architectures could exist. No new equations are added, as the contribution remains conceptual and architectural. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and use-case section: the design principles are defined in terms of the physical constraints and then used to define the pillars; without explicit reduction steps it is unclear whether any pillar reduces to a restatement of the input constraints or to quantities fitted to the three use cases.

    Authors: The principles function as an interpretive bridge rather than a direct restatement. We have added clarifying paragraphs in the revised introduction and use-case section that illustrate how each pillar extends the principles with operational choices (e.g., negative-latency pre-action under Turing and Einstein bounds for elder-care timing). These additions reference the specific use cases to show application rather than fitting. We stop short of formal reduction proofs, consistent with the paper's scope. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Conceptual mapping presented as design framework with no reduction to inputs by construction

full rationale

The paper proposes a high-level mapping from named physical constraints (Shannon, Landauer, Turing, Einstein) to three design principles and then to three technical pillars as the architectural foundation for the Shared Prosperity Internet. This is framed as a grounding step for the architecture and use cases rather than a closed mathematical derivation. No equations, fitted parameters, or self-referential definitions are indicated that would make any pillar or principle equivalent to the input constraints by construction. The measurable outcomes and societal use cases are listed separately. No self-citation chains or uniqueness theorems are invoked in the provided structure to bear the central claim. The derivation chain therefore remains self-contained as a conceptual proposal.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 4 invented entities

The central claim rests on the validity of mapping four named physical constraints directly to three design principles and then to three technical pillars; these mappings are introduced without independent derivation or external benchmark in the provided abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Physical constraints of Shannon, Landauer, Turing, and Einstein can be mapped to the design principles of trustworthiness, sustainability, and technological sovereignty
    Stated as the grounding step for the entire architecture in the abstract.
invented entities (4)
  • Shared Prosperity Internet (SPI) no independent evidence
    purpose: Network-computing architecture for broad accessibility of AI and automation
    Newly named construct that organizes the proposed pillars and use cases.
  • post-Shannon goal-oriented communication no independent evidence
    purpose: Transmits only what the task requires
    One of the three technical pillars introduced in the abstract.
  • anticipatory decision-making with negative latency no independent evidence
    purpose: Confidence-bounded pre-action and correction
    Second technical pillar introduced in the abstract.
  • beyond-digital computing no independent evidence
    purpose: Selects energy-optimal substrates under deadline and computability constraints
    Third technical pillar introduced in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5716 in / 1591 out tokens · 62179 ms · 2026-05-19T19:30:54.681249+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

16 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Scientific Background to the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel 2024,

    The Committee for the Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel, “Scientific Background to the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel 2024,” The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Tech. Rep., Oct. 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.nobelprize. org/uploads/2024/10/advanced-economicsciencesprize2024.pdf

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    The Digital Provide: Information (Technology), Market Performance, and Welfare in the South Indian Fisheries Sector,

    R. Jensen, “The Digital Provide: Information (Technology), Market Performance, and Welfare in the South Indian Fisheries Sector,”The Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 122, no. 3, pp. 879–924, Aug. 2007

    work page 2007

  3. [3]

    The Tactile Internet: Applications and Chal- lenges,

    G. P. Fettweis, “The Tactile Internet: Applications and Chal- lenges,”IEEE V eh. Technol. Mag., vol. 9, no. 1, p. 64–70, Mar. 2014

    work page 2014

  4. [4]

    Irreversibility and Heat Generation in the Com- puting Process,

    R. Landauer, “Irreversibility and Heat Generation in the Com- puting Process,”IBM Journal of Research and Development, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 183–191, Jul. 1961

    work page 1961

  5. [5]

    Experimental Verification of Lan- dauer’s Principle Linking Information and Thermodynamics,

    A. B ´erut, A. Arakelyan, A. Petrosyan, S. Ciliberto, R. Dil- lenschneider, and E. Lutz, “Experimental Verification of Lan- dauer’s Principle Linking Information and Thermodynamics,” Nature, vol. 483, no. 7388, pp. 187–189, Mar. 2012

    work page 2012

  6. [6]

    Decadal Plan for Semiconductors – SRC,

    J. Ang, D. Apalkov, and F. Assaderaghi, “Decadal Plan for Semiconductors – SRC,” Tech. Rep., Jan. 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.src.org/about/decadal-plan/

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    A Mathematical Theory of Communication,

    C. E. Shannon, “A Mathematical Theory of Communication,” Bell System Technical Journal, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 379–423, Jul. 1948

    work page 1948

  8. [8]

    Codes for Identification via Channels: Tutorial for Communications Generalists,

    C. von Lengerke, J. A. Cabrera, M. Reisslein, and F. H. P. Fitzek, “Codes for Identification via Channels: Tutorial for Communications Generalists,”IEEE Commun. Surveys Tuts., vol. 28, pp. 181–223, Jun. 2025

    work page 2025

  9. [9]

    On Computable Numbers, with an Application to the Entscheidungsproblem,

    A. M. Turing, “On Computable Numbers, with an Application to the Entscheidungsproblem,”Proc. London Mathematical Society, vol. s2-42, no. 1, pp. 230–265, Jan. 1937

    work page 1937

  10. [10]

    Op- timization of Digital-Twin Representations of Analog Signals and Systems,

    H. Boche, U. J. M ¨onich, Y . N. B¨ock, and F. H. P. Fitzek, “Op- timization of Digital-Twin Representations of Analog Signals and Systems,” inProc. IEEE ICC, May 2023, pp. 6090–6095

    work page 2023

  11. [11]

    Virtual-Twin Technologies in Networking,

    Y . N. B ¨ock, H. Boche, R. F. Schaefer, F. H. P. Fitzek, and H. V . Poor, “Virtual-Twin Technologies in Networking,”IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 61, no. 11, pp. 136–141, Jul. 2023

    work page 2023

  12. [12]

    Turing Meets Shannon: Algorithmic Constructability of Capacity-Achieving Codes,

    H. Boche, R. F. Schaefer, and H. V . Poor, “Turing Meets Shannon: Algorithmic Constructability of Capacity-Achieving Codes,” inProc. IEEE ICC, Jun. 2021, pp. 1–6

    work page 2021

  13. [13]

    Denial-of-Service Attacks on Communication Systems: Detectability and Jammer Knowledge,

    ——, “Denial-of-Service Attacks on Communication Systems: Detectability and Jammer Knowledge,”IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 68, pp. 3754–3768, May 2020

    work page 2020

  14. [14]

    Negative Latency in the Tactile Internet as Enabler for Global Metaverse Immersion,

    J. Schulz, C. Dubslaff, P. Seeling, S.-C. Li, S. Speidel, and F. H. P. Fitzek, “Negative Latency in the Tactile Internet as Enabler for Global Metaverse Immersion,”IEEE Netw., vol. 38, no. 5, pp. 167–173, Sep. 2024

    work page 2024

  15. [15]

    Communication via one- and two-particle operators on Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen states,

    C. H. Bennett and S. J. Wiesner, “Communication via one- and two-particle operators on Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen states,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 69, pp. 2881–2884, Nov 1992

    work page 1992

  16. [16]

    Uniform Common Randomness Generation Over Arbitrary Point-to- Point Channels,

    R. Ezzine, M. Wiese, C. Deppe, and H. Boche, “Uniform Common Randomness Generation Over Arbitrary Point-to- Point Channels,”IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 71, no. 7, pp. 5312–5329, Apr. 2025. Juan A. Cabreraobtained his Dr.-Ing. degree at TU Dresden, Germany, in 2022, and his master’s degree at Aalborg University, Denmark, in 2015. He currently works at th...

    work page 2025