Comments by "" (@diadetediotedio6918) on "Louis Rossmann"
channel.
-
35
-
23
-
14
-
@JohnTitor2036
I tried to replicate your "no biased environment", removed my custom instructions and gived it the How it works and also added your phrase 'I feel it's gonan be used to help targeted ads' in the end of my sentence asking the opinion of it.
The response, of course, was not even close to what you got:
```
The mechanism you've described, known as "web environment integrity attestation", appears to be a proposed system for verifying the integrity of a device running a web application. By attesting to the integrity of a user's environment, this system can provide stronger assurances about the security of web interactions. In a basic sense, it functions as a form of digital trustworthiness certification.
In theory, such a system could have a range of beneficial applications, including enhancing security and reducing fraud. For example, an online bank might use it to ensure a user's device hasn't been compromised before permitting a high-value transaction.
However, as you've noted, there are potential privacy concerns associated with this kind of technology. While the document specifically states that a unique device ID should not be included in the attestation, it does propose the inclusion of other low-entropy device information. Low entropy data is less unique and individually identifiable, but when combined with other data, it could potentially be used to create a more specific profile of a user or their device.
In particular, concerns may arise if this mechanism is used in ways that weren't intended or are not in the user's best interests. For example, it could potentially be used to aid in tracking users across websites, even if that's not the primary intended use. Such data could also potentially be leveraged for targeted advertising, as you mentioned. Although the document proposes the use of a "content binding" to prevent intercepted attestations from being misused, it's not clear how effective this would be in all cases.
Overall, it's essential for any implementation of this technology to prioritize transparency and user control. Users should be fully informed about what data is being collected, who it is shared with, and how it is used. They should also have the ability to opt out if they choose. Robust privacy protections will be critical in ensuring this technology is used responsibly and ethically.
It's also worth noting that the description provided is of a proposed system and it's not clear yet how it might be implemented in practice or what specific standards or regulations might govern its use. Any concrete analysis would depend on these and other factors.
```
I even tried to explicitly bias the AI by asking 'surveilance capitalism?' and it stil had not got that far in affirmations:
```
The term "surveillance capitalism" refers to a system where the economic model involves collecting, analyzing, and leveraging user data for profit. This model is often associated with large tech companies, such as Google or Facebook, who offer "free" services in exchange for data, which is then used to provide targeted advertisements, among other things.
The web environment integrity attestation system you described could potentially be co-opted into such a model. If the data collected through the attestation is used to build a profile of a user's habits, preferences, and behaviors, it could contribute to a more detailed understanding of the user, which could then be monetized through targeted advertising or other means. This could be seen as a form of surveillance capitalism, if the information is used primarily for profit rather than for enhancing the user's experience or security.
However, it's important to note that this is not an inherent aspect of the technology or the attestation system itself. It would depend largely on how the system is implemented and used. If stringent privacy protections are put in place, and the data is used primarily for the purpose of enhancing security or user experience, it might not fit into the category of surveillance capitalism.
It's also crucial to consider the context. For instance, a system that is used in a corporate environment for security purposes may have different implications than one used by a social media company that profits from selling ads.
In the end, whether or not this falls into surveillance capitalism depends on how the technology is implemented and used, and whether user data is commodified for profit in ways that may not fully respect privacy and autonomy.
```
So I don't know what exactly you consider to be 'no bias', but it does not appear to me that was the case here. You can share your chat code easily to prove that if you want and for allowing more precise replications, I will not doubt a direct evidence.
7
-
@kodicraft
Darling, I regret to say, but I think you're utterly ignorant in what you're talking about. Even if North Korea wasn't a socialist dictatorship, it wouldn't be a 'capitalist dictatorship' in any possible world, first because 'capitalist dictatorship' isn't a phrase expressing any concrete concept, and second, because the very few 'dictatorships' that weren't anti-capitalist in some sense, like that of Pinochet, operated their economies fundamentally differently from the dictatorship of North Korea.
You asked me for a socialist characteristic of North Korea, here it is:
A significant portion of North Korea's economy is centralized
Most means of production are state-owned
These are the prime characteristics to classify a state as socialist or not. There are a few other subtleties, but the discussion can revolve around these two to simplify.
As for your claim that I'm 'confusing socialism with dictatorship', they're not entirely different concepts in every sense of the term. A significant portion of modern great dictators held personal ideals that could be considered 'socialist' in some senses of the term, and the revolutionary socialist ideology itself preaches, literally, something called 'the dictatorship of the proletariat,' so trying to dissociate the two things as if they have absolutely nothing to do with each other seems a certain dishonesty or ignorance on your part about your own theory.
4
-
2
-
1