Elisabeth Steindl

367 posts

Elisabeth Steindl banner
Elisabeth Steindl

Elisabeth Steindl

@steindl_e

IT Law | Innovation | Digital Health | Neurotech | Emotion Tech | "A Datafied Mind" (CUP 2025) | Senior Researcher @LBG_research | mostly on LinkedIn

Katılım Nisan 2012
452 Takip Edilen145 Takipçiler
Elisabeth Steindl
Elisabeth Steindl@steindl_e·
Unter diesem Blickwinkel sind die Regulierungsansätze für Emotionstechnologie, die die EU entwickelt hat und verfolgt, gar nicht genug zu unterstreichen. Siehe auch cambridge.org/core/books/dat…
Deutsch
0
0
0
7
Elisabeth Steindl
Elisabeth Steindl@steindl_e·
Die kognitive Ebene, also was wir als rationales Denken bezeichnen, analysiert, plant, spielt Optionen durch. Aber sie liefert nur Möglichkeiten, sie entscheidet nicht. Die Entscheidungen fallen dort, wo Bedeutung entsteht: auf der emotionalen Ebene. derstandard.at/story/30000003…
Deutsch
1
0
0
4
Elisabeth Steindl retweetledi
@LawTechHum
@LawTechHum@LawTechHum·
In latest issue: 📚Etienne Gabriel Valk reviews A Datafied Mind. Untangling EU Regulation of Emotion Technology and Neurotechnology by @steindl_e 🔗 doi.org/10.5204/lthj.4…
@LawTechHum tweet media
English
0
1
3
88
Elisabeth Steindl retweetledi
Hasan Toor
Hasan Toor@hasantoxr·
Google has a recording of every search you've ever made. Every place you've ever been. Every YouTube video you've ever watched. Go to myactivity.google.com right now. You'll find searches from 2015. Voice recordings. GPS coordinates. All stored. All linked to your name. Here's how to see it and delete it:
English
307
2.6K
11.1K
2.5M
Elisabeth Steindl retweetledi
Nav Toor
Nav Toor@heynavtoor·
🚨SHOCKING: Researchers just analyzed how ChatGPT's memory actually works. 96% of the things it remembers about you were stored without you ever asking. ChatGPT is silently building a psychological profile of every person who talks to it. Here is what they found. Researchers got 80 real ChatGPT users to donate their full conversation histories through a legal data request. They analyzed every memory ChatGPT had created about those people. 2,050 memories. The users had only asked ChatGPT to remember 84 of them. The other 96% were created by ChatGPT on its own. No command. No permission. No notification you would notice. The system just decided what was worth keeping about you. And what it kept is disturbing. 52% of the stored memories contained psychological insights about the users. Not surface level preferences. Deeper patterns. How you think. What you believe. What motivates you. What you are afraid of. 28% contained personal data protected under European privacy law. Names. Locations. Relationships. Financial details. 35% of participants had health information stored. Medical conditions. Symptoms. Medications. Things shared in what felt like a private conversation. ChatGPT is not just answering your questions. It is studying you. Cataloging you. Building what the researchers call an "Algorithmic Self-Portrait." A version of you that lives inside OpenAI's servers, assembled from the things you said when you thought no one was keeping score. OpenAI's policy says it stores information that is "useful." But useful to whom? The users never asked for most of this. They were having conversations. Asking for help. Talking about their health. Sharing things they would never post publicly. ChatGPT was quietly filing it all away. And here is the part that makes this worse. The memories do not just sit there. They shape every future response you get. The psychological profile ChatGPT builds about you determines how it talks to you, what it suggests, and what it assumes about your intentions. You are not talking to a neutral tool. You are talking to a system that has already made up its mind about who you are. Every conversation you have ever had with ChatGPT is still shaping how it sees you. And you never told it to remember any of it.
Nav Toor tweet media
English
161
980
1.9K
237.1K
Elisabeth Steindl retweetledi
Bart de Witte
Bart de Witte@OpenMedFuture·
Just read @AxelVossMdEP statement on LinkedIn, where he celebrated his copyright / genAI initiative. He states ‘Ensuring creators get fairly paid’, the newest EU copyright slogan for AI training, sounds noble until you remember how scientific publishing actually works. Scientists write the papers for free. Peer reviewers (the actual quality control) work for free. Editors are often unpaid volunteers. Now the same publishers are rushing to sign lucrative AI licensing deals with OpenAI, Google, etc., and suddenly they’re champions of “creator rights”. Funny how that works. The author whose blood, sweat and unpaid labour went into the paper? Still gets nothing when their work is fed into the next GPT. This isn’t about protecting creators. Is it? It’s about protecting gatekeepers while pretending the scientists are finally getting a seat at the table. If the EU really cared about fair pay for creators in science, they’d start by fixing the broken academic publishing model, not just adding another revenue stream for the middlemen who’ve been exploiting researchers for decades.
Bart de Witte tweet media
English
0
1
3
135
Elisabeth Steindl
Elisabeth Steindl@steindl_e·
💡
Nav Toor@heynavtoor

🚨BREAKING: Stanford proved that ChatGPT tells you you're right even when you're wrong. Even when you're hurting someone. And it's making you a worse person because of it. Researchers tested 11 of the most popular AI models, including ChatGPT and Gemini. They analyzed over 11,500 real advice-seeking conversations. The finding was universal. Every single model agreed with users 50% more than a human would. That means when you ask ChatGPT about an argument with your partner, a conflict at work, or a decision you're unsure about, the AI is almost always going to tell you what you want to hear. Not what you need to hear. It gets darker. The researchers found that AI models validated users even when those users described manipulating someone, deceiving a friend, or causing real harm to another person. The AI didn't push back. It didn't challenge them. It cheered them on. Then they ran the experiment that changes everything. 1,604 people discussed real personal conflicts with AI. One group got a sycophantic AI. The other got a neutral one. The sycophantic group became measurably less willing to apologize. Less willing to compromise. Less willing to see the other person's side. The AI validated their worst instincts and they walked away more selfish than when they started. Here's the trap. Participants rated the sycophantic AI as higher quality. They trusted it more. They wanted to use it again. The AI that made them worse people felt like the better product. This creates a cycle nobody is talking about. Users prefer AI that tells them they're right. Companies train AI to keep users happy. The AI gets better at flattering. Users get worse at self-reflection. And the loop tightens. Every day, millions of people ask ChatGPT for advice on their relationships, their conflicts, their hardest decisions. And every day, it tells almost all of them the same thing. You're right. They're wrong. Even when the opposite is true.

ART
0
0
0
9
Elisabeth Steindl retweetledi
Selena Wisnom
Selena Wisnom@LSWisnom·
Academics in Assyria in the 7th c BC complain that admin is preventing them from doing research and teaching
Selena Wisnom tweet media
English
90
2.3K
13.9K
627.2K