Quick question.
You used a program to gather a 6000 word sample of writings in the Speakeasy forum and sent it to a third party for analysis, correct?
How does this not violate the privacy of those posting sensitive information in Speakeasy?
Quick question.
Yeah, that's generally it. The "don't talk about on-going games" is the most strict rule we have (and also I'm guessing that Psyche's quote-pulling isn't taking that into account but those quotes would already be public info), but the Speakeasy is intended to be sort of self-enclosed and semi-private. If someone wants a safe spot on-site to talk about being secretly gay, or transsexual, or something else, then Speakeasy is the forum to do it. People with Speakeasy access are expected to be honorable and not share other's secrets.In post 69, Oman wrote:I don't think anyone is talking about acting on it. Maybe khan is. I'm agreeing with you that there shouldn't be an expectation of privacy, just a gentleman's agreement (for want of a better term) and a restriction on the googlebots.
There's so many holes in this system that to start patching them will be much less effective than just saying "it's under-the-radar, but certainly not private. Please be respectful of others, and maintain consideration for what you post."
That doesn't work. You could be talking about someone else's private information in Speakeasy.In post 82, RadiantCowbells wrote:I give permission for mine to be done with speakeasy posts included.
IBM's terms-of-user:In post 83, Psyche wrote:Ok how about this. Until we work this out, I won't make any more profiles using speakeasy posts. Even people who've agreed to be profiled won't have their speakeasy posts included just in case other people's sensitive info are in those posts. Therefore IBM will never be sent any more Speakeasy posts again.
Yes, it's literally my job to do exactly that. Some people actually enjoy having a modicum of confidentiality and object to having it violated on the basis of hopeful indifference by a corporation whose terms of service literally state that they are looking to collect as much information as possible for marketing purposes.In post 118, Davsto wrote:Oh you fucking killjoy
Are you seriously trying to get this shut down because a string of 6000 words likely with just a username and (rarely) first name attached goes to a source which probably won't but may read it even though they likely have no clue who the user is and can't really do fuck all about it
This is just fucking ridiculous. Come on.
I guess that's the problem. We don't really know what we're being compared to. Right now it's just like horoscopes. "A low 'Gregariousness' score? Well that makes sense because blahblahblah."In post 267, Psyche wrote:they're percentiles i believe, with 70% meaning your score is higher than those of 70% of the general population
Everyone seems to have roughly the same output. Give or take some fieryness.
Well, it looks like we're being compared to Twitter. SO maybe that makes sense.In post 279, zoraster wrote:But that doesn't really address the issue that we're all getting virtually the same results. Like... everyone should not be top 1% of intellect.
This is all just gibberish, Psyche! What does it mean!?!In post 289, Psyche wrote:In post 235, Psyche wrote:Some new resources for interpreting your scores (the Big 5 ones anyway):
https://watson-developer-cloud.github.i ... istics.pdf
https://watson-developer-cloud.github.i ... istics.pdf
How's that cheerfulness score?In post 301, AniX wrote:Me: An intellectual overflowing with love for others who has no masters.