Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Recent breakthroughs in machine learning and big data analysis are allowing our online activities to be scrutinized at an unprecedented scale, and our private information to be inferred without our consent or knowledge. Here, we focus on algorithms designed to infer the opinions of Twitter users toward a growing number of topics, and consider the possibility of modifying the profiles of these users in the hope of hiding their opinions from such algorithms. We ran a survey to understand the extent of this privacy threat, and found evidence suggesting that a significant proportion of Twitter users wish to avoid revealing at least some of their opinions about social, political, and religious issues. Moreover, our participants were unable to reliably identify the Twitter activities that reveal one’s opinion to such algorithms. Given these findings, we consider the possibility of fighting AI with AI, i.e., instead of relying on human intuition, people may have a better chance at hiding their opinion if they modify their Twitter profiles following advice from an automated assistant. We propose a heuristic that identifies which Twitter accounts the users should follow or mention in their tweets, and show that such a heuristic can effectively hide the user’s opinions. Altogether, our study highlights the risk associated with developing machine learning algorithms that analyze people’s profiles, and demonstrates the potential to develop countermeasures that preserve the basic right of choosing which of our opinions to share with the world.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".