3 ms·

That's not really an AI problem, it's an analog hole problem and the very nature of communication. If you give someone your thoughts, they now have them.

by bbqfog 2y ago

fwip 2y ago
Well, the difference is that solutions like this automate the hoovering-up of everybody's data. I know that some things that people share with me are more or less sensitive, and I use my knowledge and empathy to decide what I should and shouldn't repeat. I would tell my friend "Oh yeah, Carl said he can't make it to the party tonight," but I wouldn't tell them "Carl is absent from the party due to an IBS flare-up." A well-meaning friend or coworker might never consider telling another person these personal details, but not think twice about it when enabling a service like this.
- ImPostingOnHN 2y ago
  Neither I nor you would tell people about Carl's IBS if he told us. How would writing down what we are told change things, versus remembering it, considering what we write down wouldn't be shared with anyone but ourselves? How about recording, considering what we record wouldn't be shared with anyone but ourselves? How would somebody suffering from a disability such as hearing loss, vision loss, memory loss, or IBS change that? Should people with disabilities be forced to disclose them whenever they have a conversation? Does that include Carl with IBS? Or would some people with disabilities have to disclose while others are allowed to keep theirs private?
- bbqfog 2y ago
  It is inevitable that this is the direction we're headed. It's already been happening, Google, browser plug-ins... can all read both sides of an email conversation. Your phone can (if it wants) listen to you and those around you. Cameras are everywhere... at least this is self-hosted and open source. Since there will never be an option for pre-electronics privacy again, it seems like this is the direction we should push to balance out the power of corporations and governments.
  - drdaeman 2y ago
    > Since there will never be an option for pre-electronics privacy again Why do you think so? You still can have a private conversation to which no third parties are privy, you just have to use the right tools and avoid using the tools that don't match your requirements. Which is getting harder as most tools don't seem to have real privacy in mind (everyone loves the word and boasts about it, but few actually mean or practice it), but there's still plenty of tools that do and no signs this niche is dying or anything. Even the big tech seem to respect this to some extent, because there is a genuine demand for explicitly end-to-end private conversations, and because it allows companies to avoid liability and keep certain cans of worms closed. I'd say the trends aren't looking strictly antiutopian in this regard, and it's still uncertain how everything is going to turn out.
- CaptainFever 2y ago
  Please don't use words like "hoover" in relation to data, it makes no sense. This reasoning goes against the Right to Delegate [1]. It doesn't matter if you're remembering it using your brain, a notebook, an assistive tool, or Screenpipe. You're just remembering it. Whether or not you would tell another person these details is another matter altogether, and has no relation to Screenpipe, which does not, from my knowledge, republish your information anywhere else automatically. In summary: we're talking about an auto-remembering tool here. Your example talks about repeating certain sensitive details. There is no relation between your example and the topic on hand. "But isn't it the same? You're repeating the information to Screenpipe!" In the context of your example, I consider "repeating" to be "repeating to a person". See: > A well-meaning friend or coworker might never consider telling another person these personal details, but not think twice about it when enabling a service like this. "Another person". Just as you would not think twice about repeating such data to a notebook (e.g. maybe you have bad memory), you also would not think twice about repeating such data to Screenpipe. There are some exceptions, such as confidential information, where you would not be allowed to write things down on a notebook. In those cases, yes, you should not use Screenpipe. But the IBS example does not cover that; a friend, in my experience, generally does not expect such levels of secrecy unless they explicitly request so (e.g. "Hey, turn off your computer for a while/Hey, don't bring any phones to my house. We need to talk."). "What about phone recording laws?" Yeah, you're right. That throws a wrench in my argument that automated remembering has no difference to manual remembering. I could say that there ought to be no difference, but you're right that this isn't necessarily the case. I could then argue that this only applies to phone calls, and perhaps video calls. For example, there's no need to get the consent of the people around you in public when you record or take photos, as long as you're not harassing someone. But then this just becomes a legal question (what is) rather than a moral one (what ought to be). [1] https://anewdigitalmanifesto.com/#right-to-delegate https://anewdigitalmanifesto.com/#right-to-delegate
- drdaeman 2y ago
  But service like this doesn't have agency to disclose anything to anyone, does it? As I get it, it's meant for personal use, not for automatically sharing with anyone - although those Notion plugins are a potentially gray area, simply because Notion is a third party. The idea is that if you forgot if Carl can make it or not, you can look in up on your private computer (which is assumed to be reasonably secure against unauthorized access), not that it should somehow act as a virtual secretary and automatically respond to others if Carl can make to a party or not. Doing the former does not create any issues wrt privacy (privacy is about not sharing sensitive data - and there is no data sharing), doing the latter is questionable at best. Recordings increase risks, and it's concerning that I don't see a single word about even the existence of retention policies (and whenever Screenpipe can "realize" and go off the record when it detects something sensitive, pausing recording until it notices the topic changes), but besides that I'm not sure how it harms any reasonable privacy. IMHO, trying to prohibit making notes is not really reasonable, but not sharing such notes with anyone without consent is very reasonable (YMMV, of course).

That's not really an AI problem, it's an analog hole problem and the very nature of communication. If you give someone your thoughts, they now have them.

by bbqfog 2y ago

That's not really an AI problem, it's an analog hole problem and the very nature of communication. If you give someone your thoughts, they now have them.

fwip 2y ago

Well, the difference is that solutions like this automate the hoovering-up of everybody's data. I know that some things that people share with me are more or less sensitive, and I use my knowledge and empathy to decide what I should and shouldn't repeat. I would tell my friend "Oh yeah, Carl said he can't make it to the party tonight," but I wouldn't tell them "Carl is absent from the party due to an IBS flare-up." A well-meaning friend or coworker might never consider telling another person these personal details, but not think twice about it when enabling a service like this.

ImPostingOnHN 2y ago
Neither I nor you would tell people about Carl's IBS if he told us. How would writing down what we are told change things, versus remembering it, considering what we write down wouldn't be shared with anyone but ourselves? How about recording, considering what we record wouldn't be shared with anyone but ourselves? How would somebody suffering from a disability such as hearing loss, vision loss, memory loss, or IBS change that? Should people with disabilities be forced to disclose them whenever they have a conversation? Does that include Carl with IBS? Or would some people with disabilities have to disclose while others are allowed to keep theirs private?
bbqfog 2y ago
It is inevitable that this is the direction we're headed. It's already been happening, Google, browser plug-ins... can all read both sides of an email conversation. Your phone can (if it wants) listen to you and those around you. Cameras are everywhere... at least this is self-hosted and open source. Since there will never be an option for pre-electronics privacy again, it seems like this is the direction we should push to balance out the power of corporations and governments.
- drdaeman 2y ago
  > Since there will never be an option for pre-electronics privacy again Why do you think so? You still can have a private conversation to which no third parties are privy, you just have to use the right tools and avoid using the tools that don't match your requirements. Which is getting harder as most tools don't seem to have real privacy in mind (everyone loves the word and boasts about it, but few actually mean or practice it), but there's still plenty of tools that do and no signs this niche is dying or anything. Even the big tech seem to respect this to some extent, because there is a genuine demand for explicitly end-to-end private conversations, and because it allows companies to avoid liability and keep certain cans of worms closed. I'd say the trends aren't looking strictly antiutopian in this regard, and it's still uncertain how everything is going to turn out.
CaptainFever 2y ago
Please don't use words like "hoover" in relation to data, it makes no sense. This reasoning goes against the Right to Delegate [1]. It doesn't matter if you're remembering it using your brain, a notebook, an assistive tool, or Screenpipe. You're just remembering it. Whether or not you would tell another person these details is another matter altogether, and has no relation to Screenpipe, which does not, from my knowledge, republish your information anywhere else automatically. In summary: we're talking about an auto-remembering tool here. Your example talks about repeating certain sensitive details. There is no relation between your example and the topic on hand. "But isn't it the same? You're repeating the information to Screenpipe!" In the context of your example, I consider "repeating" to be "repeating to a person". See: > A well-meaning friend or coworker might never consider telling another person these personal details, but not think twice about it when enabling a service like this. "Another person". Just as you would not think twice about repeating such data to a notebook (e.g. maybe you have bad memory), you also would not think twice about repeating such data to Screenpipe. There are some exceptions, such as confidential information, where you would not be allowed to write things down on a notebook. In those cases, yes, you should not use Screenpipe. But the IBS example does not cover that; a friend, in my experience, generally does not expect such levels of secrecy unless they explicitly request so (e.g. "Hey, turn off your computer for a while/Hey, don't bring any phones to my house. We need to talk."). "What about phone recording laws?" Yeah, you're right. That throws a wrench in my argument that automated remembering has no difference to manual remembering. I could say that there ought to be no difference, but you're right that this isn't necessarily the case. I could then argue that this only applies to phone calls, and perhaps video calls. For example, there's no need to get the consent of the people around you in public when you record or take photos, as long as you're not harassing someone. But then this just becomes a legal question (what is) rather than a moral one (what ought to be). [1] https://anewdigitalmanifesto.com/#right-to-delegate https://anewdigitalmanifesto.com/#right-to-delegate
drdaeman 2y ago
But service like this doesn't have agency to disclose anything to anyone, does it? As I get it, it's meant for personal use, not for automatically sharing with anyone - although those Notion plugins are a potentially gray area, simply because Notion is a third party. The idea is that if you forgot if Carl can make it or not, you can look in up on your private computer (which is assumed to be reasonably secure against unauthorized access), not that it should somehow act as a virtual secretary and automatically respond to others if Carl can make to a party or not. Doing the former does not create any issues wrt privacy (privacy is about not sharing sensitive data - and there is no data sharing), doing the latter is questionable at best. Recordings increase risks, and it's concerning that I don't see a single word about even the existence of retention policies (and whenever Screenpipe can "realize" and go off the record when it detects something sensitive, pausing recording until it notices the topic changes), but besides that I'm not sure how it harms any reasonable privacy. IMHO, trying to prohibit making notes is not really reasonable, but not sharing such notes with anyone without consent is very reasonable (YMMV, of course).