aurintex

Yeah, that's a great idea, I will add this to the feature list ;)

But I think for the V1, I'll stick to positive reinforcement. Not 100% sure "aversive conditioning" builds the long-term trust we're aiming for. ;)

Cheers!

You're right, the trust is at zero. My entire mission agrees with your core premise: "If the data is on a server, someone will find a way to abuse it."

That's why my entire architecture is being designed differently, based on two principles:

- Fully Functional Offline: 3-letter agencies can't access data that isn't on a server in the first place. The core AI runs on-device. - Open Core: You're right to expect a "bait & switch." That's why the code that guarantees privacy (the OS, the data-pipeline) must be open-source, so the trust is verifiable.

My business model is not to sell ads or data. I'm trying to design a system where trust is verifiable through the architecture, not just promised.

That’s why the plan is to invert the usual logic: instead of capturing everything and trying to filter later, the system would reject everything by default and only respond to what the user explicitly enables --> similar to how wake word detection works.

I’ve also thought a lot about trust. Would you feel differently if the system were open source, with the critical parts auditable by the community?

Thank you, that's a very valuable and encouraging contribution :)

I've also considered the idea of collecting data now that might be useful later. However, at least within the EU, data storage must be purpose-specific.

That’s why I believe everything should be rejected immediately (similar to how wake word detection works), and only the data the user explicitly enables the AI to store should be retained. This reduces the required storage already. And the post-processing: agree, can also imagine something like "compressing the information of one hour" --> and "compress day" ...

I completely understand your concern, and I agree, the kind of scenario you describe would be morally unacceptable. I wouldn’t want to build or be responsible for anything that could enable it.

That said, I often think about how this tension applies to nearly every new technology. Most tools can be used for good or bad, and history shows that progress tends to happen either way. If we had refused to develop technologies simply because they could be misused, we might not have any at all.

I do believe it’s possible to build responsibly through transparency, local-first design, and strong legal safeguards. The EU’s data protection laws, for example, give me some hope that we’re not entirely defenseless.

Do you see this kind of outcome as something we’re tangibly heading toward, or more as a warning of what could happen if we’re not careful?

A very interesting insight. I hadn't expected that, but of course it opens up new possibilities. Sometimes it would be really interesting to crawl back through older thoughts :)

Really interesting link to "Jiminy", I hadn’t heard of that before. Also didn’t know Musk was planning something similar, but I think it’s more of a phone than a wearable?

Just to clarify, the “reminder” example was just one possible use case. The idea isn’t to capture everything or pretend to read thoughts, but to offer flexible support based on context you control.

Curious though: if there were a way for an AI to understand your thoughts, would that even be something you’d want? Or is the whole concept off-limits for you?

Is there anything you’re thinking about where this might be useful for you?

Good to know, I will double check commits if I see your name haha ;)

Totally fair perspective, and I respect how thoughtfully you approach it. It’s helpful to hear where others draw boundaries, even if the whole landscape feels hard to escape. Thx

I wouldn’t trust a “god made by man” either ;) That’s why I’m building something small, local, and transparent—more like a tool than a deity. Curious what kind of system (if any) you would trust?

So even if it were open source, that wouldn’t be a reason for you to trust it?

Just curious: what would have to change for you to even consider it? Is it more about the concept itself, or the way it's implemented?

I agree that real empathy comes from lived experience. But I wonder if there’s room for something softer: systems that don’t pretend to be human, but still support us in deeply personal ways.

I’m building something that tries to stay on the right side of that line: not replacing human touch, but amplifying it. Curious how you'd draw that boundary.

The core idea is that the AI runs locally on the device, and all data is stored on the device. Therefore, no data will be shared or sold to other companies.

Regarding anonymization --> do you mean, what if I pointed the camera at someone else? That would be filtered out.