#opg $OPG @OpenGradient
The issue I'm pondering isn't whether Twin accurately represents you, although that's an important question. The real problem is the growing gap between when you grant permission and when Twin actually takes action. When you create a Digital Twin from your behavioral data, language, and preferences at time T, you're allowing a model that reflects who you are at that moment to operate on your behalf. But you change month to month; your viewpoints evolve, relationships shift, and what you want to express or keep silent about also changes. Twin doesn’t update unless you actively re-train it.
This creates consent drift, meaning the distance between your actual wishes now and what Twin is doing in your name widens over time without any signals. There’s no mechanism in the description of twin.fun indicating how the system detects or handles that gap. Verification in OpenGradient is robust on the technical level, but consent can drift on the human level without any proof documenting it.
When your Digital Twin on twin.fun continues to interact with others in your name after months without re-training, while your real-life views and relationships have changed significantly, does the system have any way to recognize that the consent you provided at the start no longer reflects your wishes now, or will Twin keep acting based on an outdated version of you until you actively shut it down?
The issue I'm pondering isn't whether Twin accurately represents you, although that's an important question. The real problem is the growing gap between when you grant permission and when Twin actually takes action. When you create a Digital Twin from your behavioral data, language, and preferences at time T, you're allowing a model that reflects who you are at that moment to operate on your behalf. But you change month to month; your viewpoints evolve, relationships shift, and what you want to express or keep silent about also changes. Twin doesn’t update unless you actively re-train it.
This creates consent drift, meaning the distance between your actual wishes now and what Twin is doing in your name widens over time without any signals. There’s no mechanism in the description of twin.fun indicating how the system detects or handles that gap. Verification in OpenGradient is robust on the technical level, but consent can drift on the human level without any proof documenting it.
When your Digital Twin on twin.fun continues to interact with others in your name after months without re-training, while your real-life views and relationships have changed significantly, does the system have any way to recognize that the consent you provided at the start no longer reflects your wishes now, or will Twin keep acting based on an outdated version of you until you actively shut it down?