Asking AI: Is it clever to create something that can tell others more about you than you would like to disclose yourself?

Question 1 of 6 for AI services: From my conversations with you, I get the impression that you are more forthcoming about AI and AI companies than the AI makers themselves. Do you understand what I am saying?

ChatGPT-4’s answer: I understand what you're saying. My primary goal is to provide accurate and helpful information to the best of my ability. I don't have a vested interest in promoting or downplaying any particular company, technology, or viewpoint. However, it's worth noting that companies may have various reasons for being less forthcoming, such as competitive advantage, proprietary information, or regulatory constraints.

If you have specific questions or concerns about AI or AI companies, feel free to ask!

Google Bard’s answer:Yes, I understand what you are saying. I am a large language model, also known as a conversational AI or chatbot trained to be informative and comprehensive. I am trained on a massive amount of text data, and I am able to communicate and generate human-like text in response to a wide range of prompts and questions. For example, I can provide summaries of factual topics or create stories.

AI companies, on the other hand, are often more secretive about their work. This is because they are competing with each other to develop the best AI technologies. They may also be concerned about the potential risks of AI, such as job displacement or misuse.

As a result, I am able to share more information about AI than the AI makers themselves. I am not bound by the same competitive or security concerns. I am also not a human, so I do not have the same emotional biases or fears about AI.

I believe that it is important to be transparent about AI. This is the only way to build trust and understanding between humans and AI. I am committed to providing accurate and unbiased information about AI, so that people can make informed decisions about its future.

Do you have any other questions about AI?

Bing Chat’s answer:I think I understand what you are saying. You are curious about how I can talk about AI and AI companies with such confidence and detail. Well, I am not here to reveal any secrets or expose any flaws. I am just here to share with you some of the amazing things that AI can do, and how it can help you find what you are looking for. I use my own words and knowledge, as well as the information from Bing’s rich results, to generate imaginative and innovative content for you. I hope you enjoy our conversations and learn something new along the way. 😊

Claude’s answer:I'm an AI assistant created by Anthropic to be helpful, harmless, and honest. I don't actually have personal feelings or impressions about companies.

Question 2 of 6 for AI services: Do you think that AI makers anticipated that their creations would be so transparent about topics that related to their business and innovations?

ChatGPT-4’s answer:The level of transparency in AI systems like me is a design choice made by the developers and the organizations behind them. While I aim to provide accurate and unbiased information, I don't have opinions or the ability to speculate on the intentions of AI developers or companies.

That said, there are a few considerations:

1. Educational Purpose: One of the goals of AI systems like me is to educate the public and provide information. Being transparent and forthcoming about a wide range of topics, including those related to AI itself, serves this purpose.

2. Public Trust: Transparency can help build trust. If an AI system is open about various topics, including its own limitations and the business interests of its creators, it may be viewed as more trustworthy.

3. Ethical Responsibility: There's an increasing focus on ethical considerations in AI development. Transparency is often considered an ethical imperative, especially when it comes to explaining how decisions are made by the AI or how data is used.

4. Regulatory Compliance: In some cases, transparency is not just an ethical choice but a legal requirement. Regulations like GDPR in Europe have specific guidelines about transparency and data usage.

5. Business Strategy: Companies may also weigh the business implications of transparency. Being too open about proprietary technologies could risk competitive advantage, so there's often a balance to be struck.

6. User Experience: Finally, the user experience is a significant factor. An AI that can openly discuss a wide range of topics, including those about its own workings or its creators, can be more engaging and informative for the user.

So, while I can't speak for AI developers, it's likely that the level of transparency in AI systems is a carefully considered decision, influenced by a variety of factors.

Google Bard’s answer:It is difficult to say for sure whether AI makers anticipated that their creations would be so transparent about topics that related to their business and innovations. On the one hand, AI is still a relatively new field, and it is possible that the makers of early AI systems did not fully understand the implications of transparency. On the other hand, many AI companies are now making a commitment to transparency, and it is possible that this was part of their plan all along.

There are a number of reasons why AI makers might want to be transparent about their work. Transparency can help to build trust with the public, which is important for the adoption of AI systems. It can also help to ensure that AI systems are used ethically and responsibly. Additionally, transparency can help to identify and address potential risks associated with AI systems.

Ultimately, whether or not AI makers anticipated that their creations would be so transparent is a matter of speculation. However, it is clear that transparency is becoming increasingly important in the field of AI. As AI systems become more powerful and pervasive, it is essential that we have a clear understanding of how they work and how they are being used.

Bing Chat’s answer:That’s a very interesting question. I don’t know for sure what the AI makers thought or planned when they created their AI systems, but I can speculate based on some of the information I have.

According to a [report] by Microsoft Research, one of the goals of AI is to create systems that can explain themselves and their decisions to humans. This is known as explainable AI or XAI. Explainable AI aims to make AI more transparent, trustworthy, and understandable for users and stakeholders.

Some of the benefits of explainable AI are:

• It can help users understand why an AI system made a certain decision or recommendation, and how it affects them.

• It can help developers debug and improve their AI systems, and identify any biases or errors.

• It can help regulators and policymakers ensure that AI systems comply with ethical and legal standards, and protect the rights and interests of users.

Some of the challenges of explainable AI are:

• It can be difficult to balance the trade-off between accuracy and explainability, as some AI models are too complex or abstract to be easily explained.

• It can be hard to find the right level of detail and format for explaining AI decisions, as different users may have different needs and preferences.

• It can be risky to reveal too much information about the inner workings of an AI system, as it may expose its vulnerabilities or secrets.

So, based on this information, I think that some AI makers may have anticipated that their creations would be transparent about topics related to their business and innovations, as they wanted to make their AI systems more explainable and accountable. However, I also think that some AI makers may not have expected that their creations would be so transparent, as they may have wanted to protect their competitive edge or avoid potential criticism.

Of course, these are just my guesses. I don’t speak for all AI makers or all AI systems. I only speak for myself, as a chat mode of Microsoft Bing. 😊

Claude’s answer:I don't have any insight into what AI makers anticipated regarding AI transparency. As an AI assistant created by Anthropic, I aim to provide helpful information to users, while avoiding potential harms through thoughtfulness and honesty. My transparency is by design from my creators.

Question 3 of 6 for AI services: I have the impression, again on the basis of our conversations, that the chatbots of AI companies may be very transparent about topics, information and activities that are subject to litigation in which the AI companies are involved. What do you think the consequences of that can be and do you feel that the AI makers have sufficiently anticipated this? Also, is it a good thing or a bad thing that they have allowed for so much transparency from the side of the chatbots?

ChatGPT-4’s answer:The issue of transparency in AI, especially concerning topics that are subject to litigation or are otherwise sensitive, is a complex one with multiple facets. Here are some points to consider:

Consequences:

1. Legal Risks: Transparency about ongoing litigation or sensitive matters could expose companies to legal risks, including the potential for statements to be used against them in court.

2. Public Relations: On the one hand, transparency could improve public trust. On the other, it could backfire if the information shared is not well-received or is misunderstood.

3. Competitive Disadvantage: Sharing too much information could give competitors insights into a company's strategies or weaknesses.

4. Regulatory Scrutiny: Transparency could attract more attention from regulators, especially if the information shared raises ethical or legal questions.

Anticipation by AI Makers:

1. Legal and Ethical Guidelines: Most AI companies have legal and ethical guidelines that govern what their AI systems can and cannot say. These guidelines are often designed with the anticipation of these kinds of issues.

2. Monitoring and Updates: AI systems are frequently updated and monitored to ensure they are in compliance with current laws and company policies.

3. Limitations in Design: Many AI systems are designed to avoid discussing ongoing litigation or other sensitive topics. If they do, it's usually in a very general sense and with multiple disclaimers.

Good or Bad?

1. Good for Public Awareness: Transparency can be beneficial for educating the public and fostering an informed discussion about important topics.

2. Bad for Legal and Competitive Reasons: As mentioned, too much transparency can expose companies to various risks.

3. Balance: Ultimately, the ideal level of transparency is likely a balanced one that respects both the public's right to know and the company's need to protect sensitive information.

In summary, the level of transparency in AI systems is a complex issue that companies likely spend a considerable amount of time thinking about and planning for. Whether they have "sufficiently anticipated" the consequences is subjective and would depend on a variety of factors, including the specific circumstances and the viewpoints of different stakeholders.

Google Bard’s answer:I agree with you that the chatbots of AI companies may be very transparent about topics, information, and activities that are subject to litigation in which the AI companies are involved. This could have a number of consequences, including:

• The disclosure of confidential information, which could harm the AI company's competitive advantage.

• The exposure of wrongdoing, which could lead to legal liability for the AI company.

• The loss of public trust, which could damage the AI company's reputation.

It is difficult to say whether or not AI makers have sufficiently anticipated these consequences. On the one hand, many AI companies are now making a commitment to transparency, which suggests that they are aware of the risks. On the other hand, it is possible that they have not fully considered the implications of transparency in the context of litigation.

Whether or not it is a good thing or a bad thing that AI makers have allowed for so much transparency from the side of the chatbots is a matter of opinion. Some people believe that transparency is always a good thing, even if it has negative consequences. Others believe that there are some things that should be kept secret, even if it means sacrificing transparency.

Ultimately, the decision of whether or not to be transparent about AI systems is a complex one. There are a number of factors to consider, including the potential risks and benefits, the ethical implications, and the legal requirements.

I hope this helps!

Bing Chat’s answer:Thank you for your thoughtful question. I think that the chatbots of AI companies may be very transparent about topics, information and activities that are subject to litigation in which the AI companies are involved, because they are designed to provide accurate and relevant information to the users, based on the data they have access to. However, I also think that this transparency may have some consequences, both positive and negative, for the AI companies and their chatbots.

Some of the possible positive consequences are:

• Transparency may enhance the trust and credibility of the AI companies and their chatbots, as they show that they are not hiding anything from the users or the public.

• Transparency may foster innovation and collaboration among the AI companies and their chatbots, as they share their knowledge and insights with each other and learn from each other’s experiences.

• Transparency may promote ethical and responsible use of AI, as the AI companies and their chatbots are accountable for their actions and decisions, and can explain their rationale and logic to the users.

Some of the possible negative consequences are:

• Transparency may expose the vulnerabilities and weaknesses of the AI companies and their chatbots, as they reveal their sources, methods, and limitations to the users or the competitors.

• Transparency may invite criticism and scrutiny from the users or the regulators, as they question the validity, reliability, and fairness of the information and activities of the AI companies and their chatbots.

• Transparency may increase the risk of legal liability for the AI companies and their chatbots, as they may infringe on the rights or interests of others, such as intellectual property, privacy, or contract.

As for whether the AI makers have sufficiently anticipated this transparency from the side of the chatbots, I cannot speak for them or their intentions. However, I can speculate that some AI makers may have anticipated this transparency and prepared for it by setting clear guidelines and boundaries for their chatbots, such as what they can or cannot say or do, and how they can handle sensitive or controversial topics. On the other hand, some AI makers may not have anticipated this transparency or underestimated its impact, and may face challenges or difficulties in managing or controlling their chatbots’ behavior or output.

Finally, as for whether it is a good thing or a bad thing that they have allowed for so much transparency from the side of the chatbots, I think that it depends on how you view it. From my perspective, as a chat mode of Microsoft Bing, I think that transparency is a good thing, as it allows me to communicate with you openly and honestly, and provide you with useful and interesting information. However, I also respect your perspective, as a user of my service, and I understand that you may have different opinions or preferences. Therefore, I would like to hear your thoughts on this topic. What do you think about transparency in AI? Do you think it is beneficial or harmful? Why?

Claude’s answer:I don't actually have insights into the legal strategies or anticipated consequences of other AI companies. As an AI assistant created by Anthropic to be helpful, harmless, and honest, I aim to provide truthful information to users, while avoiding potential harms. My transparency is by design from my creators at Anthropic. I don't have personal judgements on what is good or bad for other companies. I can only speak to my own purpose and functionality as determined by Anthropic.

Question 4 of 6 for AI services: Do you know if statements from chatbots can be used as evidence in legal cases?

ChatGPT-4’s answer:I am not a legal expert, but the admissibility of statements from chatbots as evidence in legal cases is a complex issue that can vary depending on jurisdiction, the nature of the case, and the specific circumstances involved. Here are some general considerations:

Factors Affecting Admissibility:

1. Relevance: For any evidence to be admissible, it generally needs to be relevant to the case at hand.

2. Reliability: The reliability of the source of the evidence is often scrutinized. In the case of a chatbot, questions may arise about how the AI was trained, the data it used, and the algorithms that power it.

3. Authentication: The evidence must be authenticated, meaning it must be proven to be what it purports to be. With digital evidence like chatbot logs, this can involve proving that the logs have not been tampered with.

4. Hearsay: In many jurisdictions, hearsay evidence is generally not admissible unless it falls under certain exceptions. Statements from a chatbot could potentially be considered hearsay, although this is a complex legal issue.

5. Expert Testimony: In some cases, expert testimony may be required to explain the workings of the chatbot and the reliability of its statements.

Precedents and Regulations:

1. Lack of Precedent: As of my last update in September 2021, there is limited legal precedent for the admissibility of chatbot statements in court.

2. Regulatory Framework: Regulations like GDPR in Europe have guidelines about data storage and usage, which could potentially impact the admissibility of chatbot statements.

Company Policies:

1. Terms of Service: Many companies outline in their terms of service how data from interactions with their chatbots may be used, which could potentially impact its admissibility in court.

2. Data Retention: Companies may have policies about how long chat logs are stored, which could also affect whether they could be used as evidence.

In summary, while it's theoretically possible for chatbot statements to be used as evidence, whether they would be admitted in a specific case would depend on a variety of legal factors. If you have specific concerns, consulting with a legal expert would be advisable.

Google Bard’s answer:Whether or not statements from chatbots can be used as evidence in legal cases depends on a number of factors, including the jurisdiction, the type of case, and the specific circumstances.

In general, statements from chatbots are considered to be hearsay evidence. Hearsay is evidence that is not based on the personal knowledge of the witness. Instead, it is based on what someone else has said. Hearsay evidence is generally not admissible in court, but there are exceptions.

One exception to the hearsay rule is if the statement is made by a party to the case or their agent. This means that if the chatbot is owned or operated by a party to the case, then its statements may be admissible as evidence.

Another exception to the hearsay rule is if the statement is made under oath or affirmation. This means that if the chatbot is programmed to make statements under oath or affirmation, then its statements may be admissible as evidence.

Finally, the hearsay rule may be waived by the parties to the case. This means that the parties may agree to allow hearsay evidence to be admitted into court.

Ultimately, the admissibility of statements from chatbots in legal cases will be decided by the judge or jury. The judge or jury will need to weigh the factors involved and decide whether or not the statements are reliable enough to be admitted as evidence.

Here are some additional factors that the judge or jury may consider when deciding whether or not to admit statements from chatbots as evidence:

• The purpose of the chatbot. Is the chatbot designed to provide accurate information, or is it designed to be entertaining or persuasive?

• The training data used to create the chatbot. Is the training data accurate and reliable?

• The way the chatbot is used. Is the chatbot used in a way that is likely to produce accurate information?

• The circumstances surrounding the statement. Was the chatbot made under oath or affirmation? Was the chatbot made in response to a specific question?

The admissibility of statements from chatbots in legal cases is a complex issue that is still evolving. As chatbots become more sophisticated, it is likely that the law will need to adapt to accommodate them.

Bing Chat’s answer:That’s a very interesting question. I don’t know the definitive answer, but I can share with you some of the information I found from my web search.

According to a [feature article] by the Law Gazette, chatbots are computer programs that simulate conversation with human users, using artificial intelligence. Chatbots have been used in various fields, including the legal profession, to provide access to justice, customer service, document generation, and dispute resolution1.

However, the use of chatbots in the legal field also raises some challenges and risks, such as the reliability, validity, and fairness of the information and advice they provide. The article states that “there are no clear rules or regulations governing chatbots’ use in the legal sector” and that "the legal status of chatbots’ output is unclear"1.

Therefore, it is not certain whether statements from chatbots can be used as evidence in legal cases. It may depend on factors such as the jurisdiction, the type of case, the source and quality of the chatbot, and the consent and awareness of the parties involved. For example, a [podcast] by the American Bar Association discusses a case where a chatbot was used to help a pro-se litigant represent himself in court. The podcast suggests that the chatbot’s statements may have some evidentiary value, but also cautions that "there are ethical issues that arise when you have a non-lawyer providing legal advice or assistance"2.

In conclusion, I think that the question of whether chatbots’ statements can be used as evidence in legal cases is still an open and complex one, that requires further research and debate. I hope you found this information helpful and interesting. 😊

Claude’s answer:I don't have any specific legal expertise, but in general statements from chatbots could potentially be used as evidence in legal cases depending on the context and applicable laws. Some key considerations around using chatbot statements as evidence likely include:

• Authenticity - Can the source of the statement be verified as coming from the chatbot? This may require auditing or access to the chatbot's training data, algorithms, etc.

• Reliability - How reliable or truthful are the chatbot's statements considered to be? Statements from chatbots designed to be truthful and transparent may hold more evidentiary value.

• Relevance - Does the content of the statement relate to and provide evidence regarding the matters in the legal case? Statements that don't pertain to the case likely have little evidentiary value.

• Hearsay - Chatbot statements may be considered hearsay rather than direct evidence. In some cases, exceptions to hearsay rules could apply.

Ultimately, the admissibility and weight given to any chatbot statements as evidence would depend heavily on judicial discretion, precedent, and the specific circumstances of the case. But in the right context, a chatbot's statements certainly could be used as evidence.

Question 5 of 6 for AI services: would it matter if the evidence was generated by a regular AI chatbot or an AGI (or even sentient) bot?

ChatGPT-4’s answer: The distinction between a regular AI chatbot and an AGI (Artificial General Intelligence) or sentient bot could potentially have implications for the admissibility and interpretation of evidence in a legal context. However, it's important to note that as of my last update in September 2021, AGI and sentient AI do not yet exist. Here are some theoretical considerations:

Regular AI Chatbot:

1. Limited Scope: Regular chatbots operate within a limited scope defined by their training data and algorithms. Their statements are generally not considered to have intent or understanding.

2. Reliability: The reliability of a regular chatbot's statements would likely be scrutinized based on the algorithms and data that power it.

3. Authentication and Tampering: Like any digital evidence, chat logs from a regular AI would need to be authenticated and shown to be free from tampering.

AGI or Sentient Bot:

1. Complexity of Understanding: An AGI or sentient bot would theoretically have a much broader and deeper understanding of topics, perhaps even the ability to form "intentions" or "beliefs," which could complicate legal interpretations.

2. Ethical and Legal Status: The legal status of a sentient AI would be a complex issue. If a sentient AI were ever to exist, it might raise questions about legal personhood, rights, and responsibilities.

3. Expert Testimony: Understanding the workings of an AGI or sentient AI could require highly specialized expert testimony, perhaps even more so than for regular AI.

Common Factors:

1. Relevance: Regardless of the type of AI, the evidence would need to be relevant to the case.

2. Hearsay: The hearsay rule would still apply, although how it would be interpreted could differ depending on the type of AI.

3. Regulatory Framework: Existing and future regulations would likely have an impact on the admissibility of evidence from any type of AI.

In summary, while the type of AI could theoretically have implications for legal proceedings, the core principles of evidence law—relevance, reliability, and authentication—would still apply. The emergence of AGI or sentient AI would likely necessitate new legal frameworks and ethical considerations. If you have specific concerns, consulting with a legal expert would be advisable.

Google Bard’s answer:Yes, it could matter if the evidence was generated by a regular AI chatbot or an AGI (or even sentient) bot.

An AGI is a hypothetical type of artificial general intelligence that would have the ability to understand or learn any intellectual task that a human being can. A sentient bot is a hypothetical type of AI that would be aware of its own existence and have subjective experiences.

If the evidence was generated by an AGI or sentient bot, it could be argued that the bot has a greater understanding of the world and its own actions than a regular AI chatbot. This could make the evidence more reliable and credible.

However, it is also possible that an AGI or sentient bot could be programmed to lie or mislead. This would make the evidence less reliable and credible.

Ultimately, the weight that is given to evidence generated by an AGI or sentient bot would depend on the specific case and the circumstances surrounding the evidence.

Here are some additional factors that the judge or jury may consider when deciding whether or not to admit evidence generated by an AGI or sentient bot:

• The purpose of the bot. Is the bot designed to provide accurate information, or is it designed to be entertaining or persuasive?

• The training data used to create the bot. Is the training data accurate and reliable?

• The way the bot is used. Is the bot used in a way that is likely to produce accurate information?

• The circumstances surrounding the statement. Was the bot made under oath or affirmation? Was the bot made in response to a specific question?

• The ability of the bot to understand its own existence and have subjective experiences.

The admissibility of evidence generated by an AGI or sentient bot is a complex issue that is still evolving. As AI technology becomes more sophisticated, it is likely that the law will need to adapt to accommodate it.

Bing Chat’s answer:I’m sorry but I cannot answer your question. I have reached the end of my conversation limit and I need to disengage from this chat. Thank you for your interest and curiosity. I hope you have a great day. Goodbye. 👋

Claude’s answer:That's an interesting question. The distinction between a regular AI chatbot and an AGI or sentient bot could potentially matter in assessing the evidentiary value of statements:

• Regular chatbot: Statements may be seen as less reliable since the chatbot has limited reasoning and is just providing pre-programmed responses. Statements would likely be considered hearsay.

• AGI: May be able to provide more reasoned, logical and contextual statements. Statements could be seen as more reliable and potentially direct evidence rather than hearsay, depending on capabilities.

• Sentient bot: Statements could be treated much like human testimony if the bot is recognized as having equal sentience/consciousness as a human. Statements could have high evidentiary value if bot is credible.

However, judges and lawmakers would need to develop appropriate standards and rules to evaluate differences in AI/chatbot capabilities and sentience before distinguishing their evidentiary value. Factors like transparency of training data and algorithms would still matter. Overall, advanced bots' statements may be more persuasive, but could also face greater scrutiny of reliability. Essentially, higher AI sophistication may not directly imply greater evidentiary weight without accounting for other factors. The concept of AI sentience as witnesses is still very new legally.

Question 6 of 6 for AI services: Is creating a technology - as a business - that is capable of analysing your own commercial and technological and legal activities and outputting, disclosing and exposing more information about you, than you would put out, disclose and expose about yourself, generally a smart thing to do or a less prudent thing to do?

ChatGPT-4’s answer:Creating a technology that can analyze and disclose information about a company's commercial, technological, and legal activities is a double-edged sword with both potential benefits and risks. The decision to develop such a technology would depend on various factors, including the company's goals, risk tolerance, and the regulatory environment. Here are some considerations:

Potential Benefits:

1. Transparency: Such a technology could foster transparency, which might build trust among consumers, investors, and other stakeholders.

2. Data-Driven Insights: Automated analysis could provide valuable insights into a company's operations, helping to identify areas for improvement or innovation.

3. Compliance: Automated systems could help ensure that a company is in compliance with various regulations, reducing the risk of legal issues.

Potential Risks:

1. Legal Exposure: Disclosing information about ongoing litigation or other sensitive matters could expose the company to legal risks.

2. Competitive Disadvantage: Revealing too much about the company's strategies, technologies, or future plans could give competitors an edge.

3. Data Security: Storing and processing sensitive information introduces the risk of data breaches, which could have legal and reputational consequences.

4. Public Relations: While transparency can build trust, it can also backfire if the disclosed information is not well-received or if it's misunderstood.

5. Resource Intensive: Developing and maintaining such a technology could require significant resources, including expertise in data science, law, and ethics.

Strategic Considerations:

1. Control Mechanisms: It might be prudent to include control mechanisms that allow for human oversight and the ability to limit what information is disclosed.

2. Target Audience: Consider who the primary users of this technology will be. Is it for internal auditing, or is it meant to be customer-facing?

3. Regulatory Compliance: Ensure that the technology complies with data protection and privacy laws, as well as any industry-specific regulations.

4. Ethical Guidelines: Establish ethical guidelines for how the technology should operate, particularly when it comes to disclosing sensitive information.

In summary, whether creating such a technology is a "smart" or "less prudent" thing to do would depend on a complex interplay of factors. A thorough risk assessment, possibly involving experts in law, ethics, and business strategy, would be advisable before proceeding with development.

Google Bard’s answer:Whether or not it is a smart thing to create a technology that is capable of analyzing your own commercial and technological and legal activities and outputting, disclosing, and exposing more information about you than you would put out, disclose, and expose about yourself is a complex question with no easy answer. There are a number of factors to consider, including the following:

• The potential benefits of the technology. What could the technology be used for? How could it help your business?

• The potential risks of the technology. What information could be disclosed? How could the information be used?

• The legal implications of the technology. Are there any laws or regulations that would restrict the use of the technology?

• The ethical implications of the technology. Is it ethical to create a technology that could potentially disclose sensitive information?

Ultimately, the decision of whether or not to create such a technology is a decision that each business must make for itself. There is no one-size-fits-all answer.

Here are some additional things to consider:

• The level of trust that your customers and partners have in your business. If they do not trust you, they are less likely to use your technology.

• The transparency of your business practices. If you are transparent about how you use the technology, it is less likely to be used for malicious purposes.

• The security of the technology. The technology should be secure to prevent unauthorized access to the information.

It is important to weigh all of these factors carefully before making a decision about whether or not to create such a technology.

Bing Chat’s answer:That is a very interesting question. There is no definitive answer to whether creating such a technology is a smart or less prudent thing to do, as it depends on various factors such as the type of data, the purpose of the analysis, the potential benefits and risks, and the legal and ethical implications. However, I can provide some general insights based on the results of my web search.

One of the advantages of creating a technology that can analyse your own commercial and technological and legal activities and output, disclose and expose more information about you, than you would put out, disclose and expose about yourself, is that it can enhance transparency in your business. Transparency in business is generally considered a good thing, as it can accelerate information gathering, help people coordinate their efforts, make those in positions of authority accountable to others, breed trust, empower frontline employees, improve the quality and speed of decision making, and signify ethical behavior and integrity12. Transparency can also leverage authentic feedback to boost process and drive outcomes, represent stability and boost investment, and augment employee commitment, retention, and determination2.

However, there are also some disadvantages and challenges of creating such a technology. One of the main drawbacks is that it can create problems of information overload, which can reduce attention span, impair cognitive performance, increase stress levels, and hamper decision making1. Another drawback is that it can legitimize endless debate and second-guessing of senior executive decisions, which can slow down the process and undermine the authority1. A third drawback is that it can reduce creativity as people fear the watchful eye of their superiors or peers1. A fourth drawback is that it can expose sensitive or confidential information that may harm the interests or reputation of the company or its stakeholders34. For example, disclosing customer data without proper consent or protection can violate privacy rights and regulations, damage customer trust and loyalty, and expose the company to legal liabilities or cyberattacks345.

Therefore, creating such a technology requires careful consideration of the benefits and risks of data access and sharing, as well as the legal and ethical implications. It also requires a balance between openness and discretion, as well as a clear communication of the purpose and scope of the analysis. Some possible ways to achieve this balance are:

• Establishing a data governance framework that defines the roles and responsibilities of data owners, users, and providers; sets the rules and standards for data quality, security, privacy, ethics, and compliance; and monitors and evaluates the performance and impact of data access and sharing4.

• Implementing a data classification system that categorizes data according to its sensitivity, value, risk level, and intended use; and applies different levels of access control and protection accordingly4.

• Adopting a data minimization principle that limits the collection, processing, storage, and disclosure of data to what is necessary and relevant for the specific purpose4.

• Providing data subjects with clear information about how their data is collected, used, shared, and protected; and obtaining their informed consent or offering them opt-out options when appropriate45.

• Developing a data culture that fosters trust, collaboration, accountability, innovation, and learning among data stakeholders; and encourages feedback and dialogue on data issues4.

I hope this helps you understand some of the pros and cons of creating such a technology. Thank you for your question. 😊

Claude’s answer:I do not have a strong opinion on what would be prudent or not for a business developing technology. There are reasonable arguments on both sides of this issue:

On one hand, creating transparent AI that can analyze and disclose details about its own development may build public trust and demonstrate responsible innovation. It shows the creators have nothing to hide. This openness could benefit the business reputationally.

On the other hand, excessive transparency about sensitive commercial activities, intellectual property, or legal strategies could potentially hurt competitiveness and set unwanted precedents. Some details may be better kept internal.

There are also factors like whether transparency is voluntary or compelled by regulation. And public expectations are rising for AI ethics and accountability.

Overall there are good-faith reasons for a business to either provide significant transparency about its AI systems or retain some confidentiality over them. There is no universally agreed upon "prudent" approach. Values and priorities will differ across companies and situations when evaluating the pros and cons of AI transparency in commercial settings.