3 ms·

Unfortunately, it's not a human on the other side, it's a system, whether it's a system built based on business rules or a system built based on computer algori

Unfortunately, it's not a human on the other side, it's a system, whether it's a system built based on business rules or a system built based on computer algorithms, everyone gets the same inflexible system. It's not logistically feasible to create a custom experience for each user based on how far they consent to every little thing, as the use cases are infinite: you may consent to download CSS on this site, but not on that site, or on that site, but not on pages that match this regex, etc. If you tried to do that, your product would immediately flop because most users would find it too annoying and complicated to use compared to any system that makes reasonable assumptions about consent. I agree that many modern software have no respect to humans, but that's not because the developers didn't want to implement a yes/no consent dialog or several of them, it's because they think the only boundary they can't cross is what the law says they can't, and everything else is fair game.

nonrandomstring 3y ago
Sorry late to reply after work today, but you really got me thinking AR > everyone gets the same inflexible system. It's not logistically feasible to create a custom experience for each user based on how far they consent to every little thing, Is it though? Maybe this is where AI is going to be a win - in dynmaic protocols and bespoke interactions. What if we leave my "AI web-browsing agent" to talk to your "AI web server" to quite literally negotiate a whole bunch of preferences. Usual game theory applies. If your bot tries to defect or fuck mine over, or my bot is too greedy or defective we both get a suboptimal outcome? Maybe I am happy to trade certain bits of data like location or budget but will withold or lie about others, say age and gender. In response I might not get all the info I seek. By making the value of our transactional relations explicit some interesting things might happen. Maybe if your Wbserver agent is is a bit too greedy mine will shop around to other sites etc. respects.
- AlienRobot 3y ago
  Then the AI would be the one making assumptions about your consent. When it gets it wrong and your boundaries are violated, everyone will just shrug and say "well but the AI said it was okay." In my opinion, algorithms can not fix this. The developer needs to know clearly what boundaries they can't cross, and the only way for that to happen is if there are obvious penalties and deterrents. If Microsoft commits egregious privacy violations but it makes them more money than it costs them, why would they stop?

nonrandomstring 3y ago

Sorry late to reply after work today, but you really got me thinking AR > everyone gets the same inflexible system. It's not logistically feasible to create a custom experience for each user based on how far they consent to every little thing, Is it though? Maybe this is where AI is going to be a win - in dynmaic protocols and bespoke interactions. What if we leave my "AI web-browsing agent" to talk to your "AI web server" to quite literally negotiate a whole bunch of preferences. Usual game theory applies. If your bot tries to defect or fuck mine over, or my bot is too greedy or defective we both get a suboptimal outcome? Maybe I am happy to trade certain bits of data like location or budget but will withold or lie about others, say age and gender. In response I might not get all the info I seek. By making the value of our transactional relations explicit some interesting things might happen. Maybe if your Wbserver agent is is a bit too greedy mine will shop around to other sites etc. respects.

AlienRobot 3y ago
Then the AI would be the one making assumptions about your consent. When it gets it wrong and your boundaries are violated, everyone will just shrug and say "well but the AI said it was okay." In my opinion, algorithms can not fix this. The developer needs to know clearly what boundaries they can't cross, and the only way for that to happen is if there are obvious penalties and deterrents. If Microsoft commits egregious privacy violations but it makes them more money than it costs them, why would they stop?