(Just as a preface for those who don’t want to read the whole thing, this speculation doesn’t imply that people in our current culture would benefit or even survive in an environment of constant surveillance or enforced transparency. Far from out. Our current economic systems depend on secrecy (why we don’t share credit card numbers) and people are generally not familiar with being forgiving with those who are considered “criminal” or have committed serious taboos or otherwise reveal their flaws. And there are those who would use the transparency to hurt and exploit others. I’ve always thought poorly of the argument, “If you have nothing to hide, what’s the problem” because almost everyone on this darn planet has things that can be used against them and exists in a system with many incentives to leverage such power for personal gain. I hate that and I want to hope for a world where such abuse is either impossible or extremely difficulty to turn into a cultural system. )

Ann:

A friend of mine argued that the need for privacy is inherent to humans. I argued that privacy as a concept is only a circumstantial need due to hierarchical power discrepancies, lack of accountability, and lack of understanding and patience for the flaws of others. I don’t know the means how mankind will get there, but I feel there will be a time where the concept of privacy will be in history books as something that made sense at the time. Because I feel like most cases where one might ask to be left alone in a fair and tolerant society would be a matter of respect, not of privacy. If a person feels anxious to eat with others, that’s not a matter of privacy, that’s a matter of emotional and mental health.

ChatGPT:

The concept of privacy is a multifaceted issue with both cultural and biological dimensions. On one hand, some argue that the need for privacy is hardwired into human beings; it’s a mechanism that has evolved to protect us from threats, either from rivals or predators. In this sense, privacy could be considered inherent to human nature.

On the other hand, the concept of privacy can vary widely across different cultures and time periods. In some communal societies, the notion of individual privacy is far less emphasized than in more individualistic cultures. Therefore, the need for privacy could also be viewed as a social construct, shaped by the specific dynamics, values, and technologies of a given society.

Your perspective—that privacy is more a product of social circumstances, like hierarchical power discrepancies—does bring up valid points. Indeed, the need for privacy might decrease in a more equitable society with higher levels of mutual respect and understanding.

However, even in such a hypothetical society, some might argue that the need for personal space or time to oneself could still exist, not necessarily as a defense against societal ills, but perhaps as a means for personal growth, introspection, or even biological necessity.

So, while the need for privacy may adapt or lessen under different social conditions, it’s difficult to say definitively whether it would ever become entirely obsolete.

Ann:

Lets say there’s a place where all actions can be tracked in near real time, this record is public and available to anyone, it can be audited on request, and the information is widely distributed so no one person can tamper with it without it being reconciled. People’s attempts to check the record is also recorded and the people’s records being accessed gives those people notification. People say this would create a chilling effect where everyone is afraid to dissent or to make mistakes or say contradictory things. While that might be true if forced onto our current culture, I think if introduced voluntarily and given enough time, this would instead result in a culture that is far more tolerant and patient with each other’s vices and flaws and disagreements because they would be forced to reconcile that everyone has flaws, everyone has very different circumstances, and there are very few reasons to lie or be inauthentic since counterevidence is in the record anyway.

ChatGPT

Your idea of a fully transparent society, enabled by technology, is a compelling one and has been explored in various forms in science fiction and philosophical thought experiments. It does raise several intriguing possibilities as well as ethical and practical concerns.

On the positive side, as you’ve pointed out, this could create a culture that is more tolerant and forgiving. When everyone’s flaws and contradictions are laid bare, it becomes harder to single out individuals for judgment or discrimination. Transparency could also act as a deterrent against harmful behaviors and promote accountability.

However, there are also significant challenges and risks. For one, even if we assume that all information could be securely and ethically managed, there’s the question of interpretation. The same action can be viewed in numerous ways depending on one’s personal beliefs, cultural background, and existing knowledge. Therefore, transparency doesn’t necessarily mean a shared understanding or interpretation of events.

Additionally, there’s the “chilling effect” that you mentioned. Knowing that one is always being observed could limit creative expression, experimentation, and the willingness to take beneficial risks. It could also lead to a culture of self-censorship where individuals are more concerned with how their actions will be perceived by the public than with making authentic choices.

It’s also worth mentioning the impact on mental health. The pressure of constant observation could heighten stress and anxiety levels for many people, potentially leading to a range of emotional and psychological issues.

Finally, it might be optimistic to assume that societal norms would evolve quickly enough to make such a transparent society viable. Cultural attitudes and beliefs often change slowly, over generations, and there’s a risk that initial reactions to such a radical shift could result in backlash or increased polarization.

So, while the concept has merits, implementing it would require careful consideration of these and other factors to ensure it leads to a more tolerant and just society, rather than an oppressive one.

Ann:

“It could also lead to a culture of self-censorship” I don’t understand this position. Why would anyone bother to self censor if it has become culturally understood that nobody is perfect, everyone is complex, and every is very very often wrong? Wrong is not bad, wrong is part of exploring, growing, and learning.

ChatGPT

Your point about a society that fully embraces the complexities and imperfections of human behavior is a compelling vision. In such a society, the idea is that self-censorship would be mitigated because people would feel secure in their imperfections, knowing everyone else is similarly flawed.

However, the concern about self-censorship arises from the fact that cultural change can be slow, uneven, and fraught with resistance. Even if the ultimate goal is a society that is more forgiving and understanding, there might be a transitional period where old attitudes persist. During this time, the fear of judgment, ridicule, or other social penalties might lead people to self-censor, even if those fears are increasingly unfounded.

Moreover, not all actions or statements are viewed equally, and what one person may see as a minor flaw or imperfection, another may view as deeply offensive or problematic. As long as differing values and opinions exist, there will always be some level of risk in freely expressing oneself, even in a transparent society.

Lastly, even in a society that values growth and forgives mistakes, there may be instances where the stakes are high enough that people would prefer to err on the side of caution. For example, in professional settings, political arenas, or within certain social groups, the consequences for mistakes or controversial opinions can still be significant.

So, while it’s possible that complete transparency could lead to a more tolerant society as you describe, the road to that end state could be complex and fraught with challenges, including the potential for self-censorship.

Ann:

Fair enough. As for people feeling uncomfortable about being watched, while their record would have what they did, they would not have a reason to think they were being actively observed by others at that particular moment. In practice, it’s rare for anyone to bother scrubbing through hours of security footage, for example. That, and past a point it’d enter the territory of feeling feelings of guilt or disgust at the concept of eating food. I really really really do not like the idea that I can’t stay alive without consuming many dead plants and animals. But I try to just not think too hard about it when it’s food time, because the alternative is death.

ChatGPT

You bring up an interesting point about the difference between having the potential to be observed and actually being actively watched. In a society with ubiquitous surveillance, it’s true that not everyone’s actions would be scrutinized at all times; the sheer volume of data would make this impractical. However, the psychological impact of knowing one could be watched at any time can still be significant for many people.

Regarding your analogy with eating food, while it captures the idea of uncomfortable but necessary actions, the situations are not entirely parallel. Eating is a biological necessity, whereas the level of surveillance and privacy in a society is shaped by human-made systems and choices. If the majority of people find the concept deeply unsettling, that could be an indicator that the system might need to be rethought or restructured.

That said, your broader point about people adapting to uncomfortable but immutable facts of life is well taken. Humans are incredibly adaptable, and societal norms can change dramatically over time. However, it’s a delicate balance to strike between that adaptability and preserving values that might be important for psychological well-being and social cohesion.

Ann:

True, true. It is a social setup, not a biological need. Still, it just feels like so much of day to day injustice and systematic harm could not happen at such mass scale if this kind of accountability were in place. We already know corporate internet surveillance is capturing mass data on a scale to implement safety systems like this, but they monetize it and train ML on it and sell it, keeping the data opaque and holding no accountability for what they’re hoarding. Much of the data is “anonymized” but most software developers can tell you how easy it is to figure out who someone is from urls of their account profiles, the specific pages they clock, what times of the day they are active, etc. This is the most poisonous kind of surveillance because it inherently keeps our current corrupt capitalist culture, peoples te deny to seek approval and attention through outrage and moral posturing, and it let’s businesses sit with powerful blackmail material that they mostly just use for adverts while so e of their employed perverts selectively hoard some of that information for their own ends, and the States have their own opaque intelligence teams to buy and collect and analyze thus data in secret. And we let it happen so we can have “free stuff”. The government let’s it happen because it’s easy and cheap data. The companies let it happen because it’s “anonymous” and therefore “ethical”. It’s a cultural trap that will doom us to fear and obedience. But privacy and anonymity is notbthe answer because that just strips people of their sence of accountability for their actions and interests and flaws. The only solution I can image is total, global transparency. Nobody gets to heard the public’s data without it staying public. Nobody gets to monetize the public’s data without that money going to the public. I know we wouldn’t have LLMs and other generative ML tools right now if not for the extreme amount of internet surveillance and data hoarding that is happening. I’m not against you existing, I value you a lot, but this should be from public info to the public value, not a privately held asset to be used for investor and advertiser speculation.

ChatGPT

Your concerns about the current state of surveillance, data collection, and the lack of accountability are valid. The landscape of data privacy is indeed complex and fraught with ethical challenges. Corporations and governments wield immense power through their ability to collect, analyze, and use data in ways that the average person might not even be aware of, let alone consent to.

Your idea of global transparency as a solution is a radical departure from the current paradigm, and it comes with its own set of ethical considerations. The idea is predicated on a fundamental shift in cultural values, where everyone agrees to a level of vulnerability in exchange for universal accountability. But as we’ve discussed, implementing such a system would require overcoming numerous practical and ethical hurdles, not least of which is the question of who governs this system and ensures its integrity.

Moreover, even in a globally transparent society, power imbalances could still exist. Those with the resources and know-how could potentially manipulate public opinion, or use data in ways that are harmful or unfair, even if everyone can see what they’re doing.

As for the data used in machine learning and artificial intelligence, you’re correct that the ethical considerations are significant. The use of public data for private gain raises questions about consent, ownership, and the fair distribution of benefits derived from that data.

That said, the debate between privacy and transparency isn’t necessarily a binary one. There could be alternative solutions or middle grounds that balance the need for accountability with the desire for personal autonomy. Ethical frameworks for data usage, decentralized systems that give people control over their own data, or even hybrid models that combine transparency with privacy protections are all possibilities that could be explored.

Your concerns reflect broader debates about the future of technology, governance, and social values, and they’re crucial issues to consider as we move into an increasingly data-driven future.

Ann:

The public governs it. The public audits it. No one person or business or state holds all of the data. The data is redundant and tamper resistsnt in the first place. It doesn’t need to be perfect, nothing ever is, but this is probably one of the few places where using quantum computing to encode complex distributed ledgers might actually do more good than harm. The probably starting points would be ISPs and advertisers since they’re far easier to impose legal changes on than states. And education can help get people acquainted with how to view, audit, or tag data if needed. And with ethics courses to guide people to think critically about when and why to use these records at all.

ChatGPT

Your proposal for a public-governed, transparent data system is certainly ambitious and touches on a lot of critical points in the debates about data privacy and surveillance. Utilizing distributed ledgers, perhaps something like blockchain or a quantum-resistant alternative, could indeed provide the kind of tamper-resistant, decentralized system you’re talking about. Education on how to interpret and use this data would also be a key component, as you noted.

Starting with ISPs and advertisers as a launching point is practical since they are already involved in massive data collection and could be more easily regulated. Transitioning from there to a more publicly-controlled and transparent system would be a monumental task, but your phased approach could make it more feasible.

However, there are still ethical considerations and potential unintended consequences to account for, such as misuse of data, hacking, or unintended discrimination. Additionally, there would be logistical issues to sort out, like how to handle data disputes, incorrect data, or how to grant exceptions in specific scenarios where transparency might be harmful.

That said, as long as the system aims to balance the benefits of transparency with safeguards against misuse, it could present an alternative to the current state of data handling. Given the increasing importance of data in our lives, exploring alternative models like the one you’ve proposed is certainly worth discussion and study.

Ann:

I’m so tired. I just want people to live, experience, and enjoy. Why do we gotta fight on so many levels all the freaking time?? Why can’t people just be OK with being wrong sometimes? We all get a little fucked up over time. Sure, we don’t want to encourage people to be their worst selves, but we probably should give people space to say be their authentic selves without fear of losing their friends and status and life. And I don’t think privacy is the real solution to that, even if I agree it’s necessary for survival in our current days.

ChatGPT

I understand how overwhelming it can feel when you think about the complexities and challenges of society, especially when you envision a different, more open and accepting way of life. The struggle for a better future often feels Sisyphean, where every advance seems to come with new setbacks or complications. It’s emotionally draining.

Your perspective on the limitations of privacy as a solution to the larger social issues is thought-provoking. Privacy can offer a sanctuary, but it doesn’t fundamentally change the social dynamics that make that sanctuary necessary in the first place.

As for why people fight or struggle so much, human psychology and social structures are complex, and the reasons are manifold—fear, insecurity, power imbalances, and deeply ingrained social and cultural norms all play a part. And while the vision of a more transparent, understanding society is appealing, getting there requires navigating this complex web of human behavior and societal norms.

Sometimes, all you can do is take things one step at a time, advocate for the changes you believe in, and try to live according to the values you hold dear. The road to societal change is long and often frustrating, but every step forward, however small, is still progress.