Every argument clarity score on this site is built from rows on this page. Each
question and answer was assessed with names hidden, the host's own answers included, on
four things from 1 to 5:
directness (does it answer the question asked), coherence (do the ideas follow),
precision (concrete details and clear references), compression (says a lot per word). The weighted
mix (30/30/25/15) is the exchange score. A person's published score averages their exchange
scores on raw tape only, at least 8 of them, shrunk toward the cohort mean.
Full method →
Answered raw tape
D 5 · C 5 · P 4 · Cm 4 4.60
Q years old to use our platform. Do you certify that you are? Some are even saying, like, I think OpenAI has been saying recently that we have technology that can determine You know, smartly, whether you're a minor or not, and then prevent you from, I think the use case was using adult mode in chat GPT. Do you trust those platforms with that sort of those guardrails or no?
A I think the, the guardrails could work, and it's good that there are some guardrails in place, but ultimately the business model of these platforms is to export the data of our children. This is what they are all about, and In some sense, the guardrails are running counter to their business interest. And we have seen historically that when there's this conflict of interest between what is good for the business and what is good for society, we know the choice that Zuckerberg is going to make. We know the choice that Google has made in these things. So I wouldn't really trust the guardrails put in place by a company that doesn't really have the incentive to put in guardrails.
AI assessment note: “I wouldn't really trust the guardrails put in place by a company”
Answered raw tape
D 5 · C 5 · P 4 · Cm 4 4.60
Q Now, what if a parent were going to say, you know, Andy, this sounds good, but, uh, we all know that Sort of to be competitive or relevant today. Um, you know, you're living in a Google world, and so would it restrict my kid to, like, not give them access to all that Google tooling?
A Well, uh, it's actually giving them the choice. Uh, you know, uh, Life is long and kids take a lot of time to grow, right? Uh, take some, uh, 18 years before they become fully formed adults in, in many cases. Uh, once you put them in the Google ecosystem, you can't take them out, right? They're there for, for good. Uh, there's nothing that, you know, prevents your child in 15 years from making a decision that actually they don't prefer the perfect ecosystem, they want to be in Google instead. Uh, but they can make that decision on their own, fully conscious of the risk that, that entails. So it's not either or. It's just to give an additional option to children. So if they decide that they want to live outside of big tech in the future and have an independent, let's say, future away from big tech, they have that possibility. And I think this is a powerful option that you're giving your children for the future.
AI assessment note: “Well, uh, it's actually giving them the choice.”
Answered raw tape
D 5 · C 5 · P 4 · Cm 3 4.45
Q Exactly. So, uh, so how do you think, you know, we've talked about a couple of issues here, talked about LLM privacy, talked about kids use of, uh, of technology and the problems there. Um, any solutions that you might have to that?
A Well, uh, fundamentally it's a business model problem. And if your business model is exploitation of data and abuse of privacy to generate money, Uh, that concept of interest is always going to exist. And what Proton has tried to do differently is have a business model where the only incentive we have is to protect user privacy. Uh, and, and this was really the motivation behind, you know, uh, launching Lumo last year, which is sort of the private AI. The way that we describe Lumo is it's the only AI where your conversation is actually private. Uh, and, and this is insured through, you know, very strong encryption. Uh, in fact, we don't have any ability to go in and Prairie past conversations. This is different from what OpenAI can do. This is different from what Google does. And this is because our philosophy is the best way to protect data is to not have it in the first place. And that is only possible because we have a business model that doesn't require us to get your data in order to make money. So it's really a business model problem, and that is also the solution. And this is why no matter what Google and OpenAI say about your privacy, They simply don't have a financial incentive to protect it, and Proton is a very different business because that is the only incentive that we have. The only reason people pay us anything is because we actually protect privacy, and without…
AI assessment note: “fundamentally it's a business model problem... and that is also the solution”
Answered raw tape
D 4 · C 5 · P 4 · Cm 4 4.30
Q So let me tell you one more thing that I do to try to defend myself, and you can tell me whether or not this is foolhardy. There are, there is an option, both in OpenAI's ChatGPT and Anthropics Cloud, where you can toggle to an incognito conversation. Does it, does that protect me at all?
A Well, uh, Google Chrome had incognito as well. Uh, but then if you've been reading the news, Google paid probably several billion in class action lawsuit settlements. Uh, and that basically showed that incognito wasn't as incognito as it was claimed. Uh, at the end of the day, you're kind of taking their word on whether it's incognito or not. Uh, and Past history shows that, uh, when Google says something is incognito or anonymous or, you know, uh, uh, private, it generally hasn't been the case. Uh, and, and, and this is why I, I think, uh, anything that is any, like, trust-based model of privacy, uh, has its limitations. So it's probably better than, uh, you know, using the default setting, as you say, that allows training and all that. Uh, but I wouldn't consider it to be, let's say, bulletproof, given Google's track record here.
AI assessment note: “I wouldn't consider it to be, let's say, bulletproof”
