Proposal: User Intents for Data Reuse #3617
Replies: 42 comments 45 replies
-
|
This is super cool and forward thinking @bnewbold! Thank you for this. One thought comes to mind is that there may be value in having some sort of track changes of historical settings (so that, should it become necessary, it's easy to know not just what the current policy is, and when it was established, but the full historical chain of policies and their update times) - lots of situations I can imagine out of the gate with people saying "but who knows what it said when I pulled it" |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
One other smaller nit with the proposal is are there even further sub-conditions on the rules e.g. I'm cool with wayback machine but not with the library of congress? Maybe some optional domain scoping or something? May be more pain than it's worth... |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
@bnewbold do you have any thoughts around the governance of intents yet? are we thinking an appointed committee, set of stewards (elected?), or even some form of voting records/mechanism (could be tricky with botting)? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
If there isn't already a method planned for opting out of starter packs, I think this would be the best way to implement it, as it would actually be enforceable on the official Bluesky app |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I understand wanting to limit the granularity of preferences, but i think many users, me included, will simply deny all AI training if the only options are allow/deny. I would love to help out AI training for open-source or freely released models and for scientific research, but i definitely do not want to help any proprietary commercial models. I think having just a little bit more granularity on the issue de jour will be useful. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
First, thanks for doing some forward thinking about these topics. I just want to raise a question on why the proposal's are opt-in as opposed to opt-out? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
If this intent system is implemented, it should be mandatory for all PDS and other applications using the AT Protocol to enforce these preferences. Otherwise, many apps will prioritize "user convenience" and UX choices as an excuse not to ask users for their preferences. As a result, only a small number of privacy-conscious users will be aware of these options, while the majority remain uninformed. Additionally, there is a risk that LLM abuse could turn this into a spam mechanism. Users aiming to manipulate responses to specific questions might create content specifically designed for this purpose and post it as ordinary content while setting "allow": true. This could lead to intentional bias in AI training data. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
This is really interesting and I love that you all are thinking in this direction. On my initial read of this, the analogy I came away with was “robots.txt for ATProto, but categorized by use case rather than agent”. Is this a good way to think about it, or is there a better mental model to use? What was the design thinking behind the use case categorization rather than agent? I can see arguments either way (eg, I’m good with a group archiving data but not distributing a bulk dataset). But I think categorization by agent is what most developers are more used to on the web, and I’m curious why you all started first with this version. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I feel the best approach for this type of initiative is to have these as Opt-In features instead of Opt-Out, as the average user will never navigate to this settings page. Prioritize protecting uninformed individuals. When the new feature is added have a one time prompt that will lead directly to the settings page for configuring these settings, and (optionally) as a part of the new account creation process show the settings so the user can configure the settings from the get-go |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
There is a statement in the proposal that intentions can be in a state of undefined, allow or disallow. If in a state of undefined, would the behavior default to disallow or allow? It seems preferable to default to disallow if you are using an opt-in approach. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I'm glad intents are coming. My one suggestion would be that instead of pushing for opt-in or opt-out, default to no choice made and prompt the user on first open of their app after it rolls out to make a choice. And for UX purposes add an "ask me later" button so they can make their decision later (pushing the prompt to the next app launch unless they go to settings to make their choice). |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I'm not sure |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
These two points prohibit implementing an important use case: unified dashboard of your data reuse preferences. It would be very annoying to have to log into a gazillion different web pages just to check or uncheck a box, which would be buried in a different spot in each one of them. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Following up to the above, having a fixed set of intents also does not accommodate another category of apps: the ones that don't require you to log in and don't quite fit into any of the defined intents. Requiring user credentials for the sole purpose of specifying intent in an app-specific record would give the app a lot more permissions that strictly necessary. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
For the protocol bridging specifically, please at least consider including per-protocol knobs in the generic record. E.g., allow users to say that they don't want to be bridged to Nostr regardless of which specific service is used. This might be implemented as "hierarchical" entries: "protocolBridging": {
"allow": true
},
"protocolBridging.nostr": {
"allow": false
},List of protocol names would have to be also managed, to ensure that implementations don't end up using different names for the same thing, but that shouldn't be too much of a trouble. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
lol - I'll bump it too while I'm getting blasted in my inbox @bnewbold User Intents wen |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
This issue is getting a wave of attention today for some reason. If you want to support it, please give it (edit: not this comment! lol) a thumbs up 👍🏻 instead of posting comments that don't add anything substantive but still get emailed to all the subscribers. Thanks. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
This would be great, honestly, but with one change. It seems to be mentioned already, but to voice my own support for this, this needs to be changed to be opt-in and any undefined value should be treated as false by default. Consent is paramount. A user that doesn't consent to being put in an AI database shouldn't be put in there for the same reason someone that doesn't consent to being thrown in the back of an unmarked van shouldn't be kidnapped. If you leave it ambiguous by default, malicious actors profit while the innocent suffer. No means no, but maybe also means no until such time an explicit yes is given. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
+1 for this feature implementation |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Hello, yes, I would like this implemented. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I would like this implemented! |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I support this proposal, with the addition that I support all proposals in this vein: https://leaflet.pub/p/did:plc:3vdrgzr2zybocs45yfhcr6ur/3miowxyaoak2c |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Heck yeah I want this |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
This is a great idea and should be implemented immediately |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I want this in bsky. In fact I want this as opt-in rather than opt-out |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Please implement this, posthaste. SHOULD be opt-in, not opt-out. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I would like to see this implemented immediately because I absolutely don’t consent to any of my public data being used for A.I. training. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I'm adding these links from bluesky because they are relevant and aren't currently included in the OP or the proposal:
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
hey weighing in here i think user intents are super important :-). - expressing, and honoring, is actually easier to implement now with AI i think? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Yes please, I would like user intents supported by ATProto. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
This is a discussion thread for the User Intents for Data Reuse proposal.
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions