Privacy in the age of Big Data

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

My love of true crime and interest in genetic genealogy has me watching a "Big 4" broadcast TV show for the first time in like 10-15 years, The Genetic Detective. Highly recommended if you are interested in the subject. ...

Just saw a story this morning about a 38-year old murder in Columbus OH of an 8-year old girl that was solved using genetic genealogy. Very cool stuff. I've been tempted to do the DNA thing and upload it to GEDMatch just to help broaden the base (although I've thought better of it every time...).

Privacy and security risks with genetic tests like 23andMe, Ancestry - Business Insider

Sharing your DNA on sites like 23andme is a risky choice. Some day down the line, you or your close relatives may find yourself unable to get insurance because an aggressive cancer runs in your family, or perhaps you are a high risk for dementia. Once your DNA data is out there, you lose all control of the information.

Since roughly 2009, researchers have demonstrated that by comparing large sets of supposedly anonymous DNA data with public datasets from censuses or voter lists, they could correctly identify between 40% and 60% of all genetic testing participants.

DNA databases have grown significantly since that 2009 experiment.

As of last fall, more than 19 million people had taken a private Ancestry or 23andMe test. On the heels of their growth, participation in public databases like Promethease and GEDmatch have ballooned as well.

"Data is data — once it’s out there, it’s very hard to control," Hazel said.

David Koepsell, a Yale bioethicist and the cofounder and CEO of blockchain-enabled genomics company EncrypGen, agreed.

"Re-identification is a real concern and people have done it with public databases. It’s not science fiction," he told Business Insider.

Last November, Yaniv Erlich, a geneticist and the chief science officer of ancestry company MyHeritage, led a study published in the journal Science in which he looked at DNA data from GEDmatch and MyHeritage. Erlich concluded that with a genetic database of 1.3 million US residents, roughly 60% of all white Americans could be traced to a third cousin. This finding was independent of whether people had themseleves participated in a genetic test.

"In the near future," Erlich wrote in the paper, "the technique could implicate nearly any US individual of European descent."

Once a customer downloads their genetic data, however, it is no longer protected by any of company's security measures.

"What you do with your data is your responsibility, whether that means sharing your login name and password with others, sharing through 23andMe, downloading your data or anything else," 23andMe's website reads.

Experts say this setup does not adequately protect users. At minimum, they say the platforms should encrypt the genetic data from the time it is sent to the time it is received. They also pointed out that a person's login information may be the same as their email, another potential security weakness.

"This is Privacy 101," Mitchell told Business Insider. "These companies need to have the highest level of security and they don't."

Mitchell and Hazel both said they believed genetic testing companies should use two-factor or multi-factor authentication, a security step enforced by many banks and data companies. It requires users to give two or more pieces of evidence (such as their phone number and a pin) before allowing access to sensitive data.

"This is something a lot of companies do," said Mitchell. "If someone really cares about your data they're going to handle it with the utmost caution. Downloading raw data is dangerous and it could go wrong."

[Lathum]

I did 23 and me to see my heritage. I am adopted and know nothing about my birth parents. One of the things it does is link your DNA with that of relatives. The closest I had come was a second cousin who I likely share a great grandparent. Usualy its a 4-5th cousin type deal.

Get a message a while back that I have have new DNA relatives. I log in and it linked me with someone who according to the DNA could only be a cousin, grandparent,nephew, or uncle. Was really weird to see someone so close to me. I searched them on Facebook and found them based off the info and it being a bit of an unusual name. Based off the picture he would likely be an uncle.

A few days later I log back into 23 and me and he is gone. I am assuming he also learned about me, likely the family dirty secret, and blocked me or whatever.

[sterlingice]

That exact concern is what has kept me from doing it. I'd love to know more about my genetics - it would probably be pretty cool. And if I have some disease or disorder, I'd rather know. But there's so much risk around it and it's clear that once you give permission to harvest that data, they're not giving it up.

SI

[Kodos]

"If you're not paying for it, then you're the product." Google isn't a software company, it's an advertising company. They are selling your interests and location data to advertisers so that the advertisements can be more effective.

Over the last 2 or 3 years, I've become much more aware about privacy than I was in the past. Like everyone else, I had a Gmail account and a Yahoo account, and I used Google to search for anything and everything. It's great software that makes your daily life easier. What's the harm? Well, Google collects and keeps every little nugget of information about you that it can get. Anything you have searched on, they have a record of it. Anything you do using Chrome, they have the info. What sites you like to go to? They've got it, even if you use Incognito tabs or privacy windows. Google knows everywhere you go and when and who you interact with. Having an affair? Google knows. They know when you meet and how long you're together. Facebook knows you're dating someone before you change your status. Did you participate in the Black Lives Matter protests? Big Data knows you were there from your phone location data, and there is a strong chance that the police know too. Surveillance cameras are everywhere, especially in metro areas. Facial recognition is becoming a big thing with little or no regulation, and police are using it along with cell phone location info to come up with suspects in their investigations. Just be careful if you are not a white man, because facial recognition is much more likely to falsely identify you if you are non-white or a woman. Have a Ring doorbell? Police in many areas work with Amazon to access that data.

My interest in the right to privacy started with a podcast called Firewalls Don't Stop Dragons. (Yeah, it's a silly name.) The New York Times has also been running a great series of articles about growing privacy issues during the era of Big Data. Over the course of the last 2 years, I have de-Googled myself and migrated to privacy respecting platforms like Duck Duck Go (search engine that doesn't track you), Firefox (used with some privacy enhancing add-ons that block trackers), and Protonmail (an end-to-end encrypted email service based in Switzerland). I've switched from Android to Apple, because Apple is working to enhance privacy protections, while Android eagerly gobbles up all the data it can. Apple makes it's money on hardware and getting a cut from apps. I'm sure I haven't completely turned off the flow of my data to Google, but I've certainly cut way down on it. Of course, they still know everything from 2018 and before. Nothing to be done about that. Once it's out there, it's out there.

[PilotMan]

Michael Crichton wrote a book in 2006 called NEXT which centered around the use and misuse of biological genetic data. It was eye opening, and something that we need to continue to press forward with today. Congress did pass a law stating that DNA and genetic testing could not be used as a basis for denying insurance in 2008 called the Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act.

I have done both 23&Me and Ancestry. In fact, I had my kids do them too and here's the reason why. The price will only go up. There will continue to be further testing that will open up my DNA to more testing as tech advances and I will put my faith in science that learning more about my (and my family by extension) will allow us to make smarter decisions for ourselves.

One thing that I was able to learn was that I was a carrier for Cystic Fibrosis. This was an important thing that my kids needed to know as well. They had a 25% chance that I passed this gene down to them, and should they marry a woman who was also a carrier, they would have a child with it. Thankfully, none of them carry the gene. That and the other information that we can learn now is helpful.

Yes, all the fears about your info out there, and it's misuse, yeah, it's something to consider, but right now I cannot be denied insurance, and I trust that humanity will continue to allow that. I really feel like life is better knowing this stuff and that my kids and family are better off knowing too. You can't enjoy the perks of tech and future advances without coming to grips with the idea that somewhere, someone, knows way more about me that they should. I have no plans to live off the grid, or hide. If any of my decedents are killers, I'd rather have my DNA help catch them.

[Kodos]

Yes, catching killers is a nice side effect. But being denied insurance, or at least having to pay more because of a known issue, does not at all seem out of the realm of possibility. The government sells out the little guy to big business all the time.

[sterlingice]

I'm a big fan of Duck Duck Go. No, the results aren't as good as Google. But they also aren't tracking me and I get where I need like 98% of the time.

Which addins are you using for Firefox? I use Adblock Plus, Ghostery, NoScript, and Privacy Badger. If there's a site I can't get to work with tweaking with settings, I have 4 other browsers on my computer that I can try. I was disappointed to see that Opera got sucked up by a Chinese conglomerate a few years ago because that probably means it's not anywhere near as safe as it used to be. Which is a shame as they have a pseduo-VPN that you can use cooked in.

One of the big problems now, it seems, is that axiom you mention "if you're not paying for it, you're the product". There are very few places where you can pay more and get security. Like you mention phones - you can pay for Apple and they'll do "less" to screw you over. But there's no such thing as a secure phone that isn't tracking you everywhere you go.

Of course there's no transparency either so you don't know what you're giving them. For instance, I've turned off all my data sharing that I can on Google and I'm sure they still have tons of data that I just can't turn off.

SI

[Kodos]

Actually, there is a phone if you are willing to go away from the big players. Purism has phones, laptops, and other devices that are made from the ground up with privacy in mind. Apple is not perfect, but like I said, they are adding privacy protections with each update. For instance, iOS 14 is adding app tracking controls.

App tracking controls and transparency


Developers are now required to get your consent before tracking you, so you can choose which apps have permission to track. And see which apps you have given permission to track in Settings so you can change your preferences.

On Firefox, I use uBlock Origin, Privacy Badger, HTTPS Everywhere, Decentraleyes, and DuckDuckGo Privacy Essentials.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Kodos

Yes, catching killers is a nice side effect. But being denied insurance, or at least having to pay more because of a known issue, does not at all seem out of the realm of possibility. The government sells out the little guy to big business all the time.

I'm just waiting with baited breath for the day when I can cash in on all my data. That's the day I become a millionaire!

[Kodos]

Your Genetic Data Isn't Safe - Consumer Reports

Still, privacy experts say there are some key concerns. One is that your genetic information could be used in underwriting insurance policies. It can’t be used for health insurance, thanks to the ACA, but—except in Florida where this practice was recently prohibited—it could theoretically be used to determine life, long-term care, or disability insurance plans.

Your genetic information could also potentially be used against you in a court case. If you were to seek damages for a work-related injury, for example, a company might try to use information from your genome to point to potential other causes for your symptoms. Law enforcement agencies have used genetic data to identify criminal suspects through their blood relatives. It’s even conceivable that sensitive information about your family or your health could be used in a blackmail scenario.

Those examples may sound extreme. But the bottom line, Brookman says, is that genetic information could reveal facts about you that you don’t want known. And right now, consumers don’t have many protections against that happening. “An individual’s most personal information is still being bought, sold, and traded without clear understanding or consent,” Brookman says.

----

Consumer Reports believes lawmakers should enact legislation that would make results from all genetic testing private by default.

That would mean companies or other entities that collect consumer genetic information would face detailed requirements before they could release or sell that information. And CR advocates say that laws should include safeguards that will ensure that an individual’s choice to share their genetic information will not compromise their privacy and that of their blood relatives. Such laws should also require strict safeguards against data theft, they say.

Some state laws are on the right track—those in Missouri and Illinois require that individuals specifically authorize any selling of their information. These laws also stop genetic data from being used in insurance underwriting unless authorized by the individual.

A proposed law under consideration in California would enact similar protections, limiting the sharing of genetic data with insurers and employers and requiring consumer consent before genetic data could be shared with any third parties.

[PilotMan]

Lawmakers should absolutely be all over this. It's a necessity.

[spleen1015]

23andme is wonderful at uncovering family dirt.

My paternal grandparents lived in Baltimore where my dad and uncle were born. My grandmother was very religious and would rent out their extra room to young women who had no where to go that turned to her church for help.

About 3 years ago, 3 women pop up claiming to be daughters of my grandfather. They found each other on that website.

Turns out Pops was banging these women and making them leave when they turned up pregnant.

There's more to this story but that is the connection to 23andme.

[JPhillips]

I had known my Dad was adopted, but Ancestry put me in touch with a woman that may be my aunt and almost certainly her father or one of his two brothers is my paternal grandfather.

When I spoke to her, I did leave out the part about my paternal grandmother insisting she was raped.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by spleen1015

23andme is wonderful at uncovering family dirt.

My paternal grandparents lived in Baltimore where my dad and uncle were born. My grandmother was very religious and would rent out their extra room to young women who had no where to go that turned to her church for help.

About 3 years ago, 3 women pop up claiming to be daughters of my grandfather. They found each other on that website.

Turns out Pops was banging these women and making them leave when they turned up pregnant.

There's more to this story but that is the connection to 23andme.

or raping them?

Not sure how I would feel I knew that about either of my grandparents. Or really, about anyone in my family with that sort of history. I'm sure it's there somewhere, but it's not that close to me if it is.

[spleen1015]

It very well could have been rape, but I don't think it was. The dude just can't keep it in his pants.

[Kodos]

Facebook Says Apple’s New iPhone Update Will Disrupt Online Advertising - WSJ

Totally on Apple's side here. Apple is working to increase people's privacy, which runs counter to Facebook's "sell people's info to anyone with a buck" philosophy. Who needs super-targeted ads?

The announcement is another shot in the increasingly contentious relationship between the two tech giants, whose different business models have led to public sparring. Apple, which produces devices sold world-wide, has criticized the data-collection operation that underlies Facebook’s massive advertising business.

----

“Our ability to deliver targeted ads on iOS14 will be limited. As a result, some iOS14 users may not see any ads from Audience Network, while others may still see ads from us, but they’ll be less relevant,” the company wrote. Despite the company’s efforts to adapt, Facebook wrote, the changes “may render Audience Network so ineffective on iOS14 that it may not make sense to offer it on iOS14 in the future.”

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Kodos

Who needs super-targeted ads?

Just depends on how you see ads in general I think. I have turned off as many targeting options as possible. My wife prefers them, by far.

I'd say there's a significant overlap for "prefers very targeted ads" and "likes to shop".

[sterlingice]

Strongly considering moving from Android to Apple ecosystem if this has some staying power

SI

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I'd say there's a significant overlap for "prefers very targeted ads" and "likes to shop".

*snort*

(This is probably true.)

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I'd say there's a significant overlap for "prefers very targeted ads" and "likes to shop".

This is why I turn them off. I'll keep seeing an ad for something dumb I looked up and eventually give in and buy it.

[Kodos]

Google’s Exclusive Search Deals With Apple at Heart of U.S. Lawsuit - WSJ

The U.S. Department of Justice has filed an antitrust lawsuit against Google for being a monopoly in the search engine business. Google pays Apple in the neighborhood of $11 billion annually to make sure that Google is the default search engine on their phones and in Apple's Safari browser. What can you do to escape Google's filter bubble and their thirst for your user data? Switch to the DuckDuckGo search engine. It never tracks your searches or sells your sensitive information to the highest bidder(s). There's no filter bubble because they don't build a personality profile on their customers. I've been using DuckDuckGo for years, and it's just as good as Google, without all the tracking.

(Sorry for sounding like an ad - I hate Google's business model of slurping up everyone's data in order to better pepper you with ads.)

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Kodos

I hate Google's business model of slurping up everyone's data in order to better pepper you with ads.

Though that business model also makes Google Assistant the by far best smart assistant out there. Alexa is nowhere near as good and Siri is a joke.

[Kodos]

I don't use any of them. I'm my own assistant!

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I'd say there's a significant overlap for "prefers very targeted ads" and "likes to shop".

Yep. I've bought a few things from Facebook over this pandemic I wouldn't have before. I now have a new salsa provider (from New Mexico that uses real green chilis in their salsa).

[stevew]

bing, etc are so much shittier than google.

[Groundhog]

I started using DuckDuckGo a little while ago. It's amazing how different certain search results are to be honest, a reminder how much Google's model has shifted since they had a monopoly on the internet search biz.

[cuervo72]

I'm trying to figure out how exactly a "breakup" of a search engine is supposed to work. Do they think they're going to make "Baby" Googles? In Maryland I'll have to use Google Atlantic, or something? That's not exactly how the internet works. Or are they going to try to mandate Google sell off half their servers? (Hey, we can spur competition by making options worse!)

(Integration with other products, fine. [Though that doesn't seem to be a big issue with other media companies.] But I don't quite get the search engine angle.)

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

I'm trying to figure out how exactly a "breakup" of a search engine is supposed to work. Do they think they're going to make "Baby" Googles? In Maryland I'll have to use Google Atlantic, or something? That's not exactly how the internet works. Or are they going to try to mandate Google sell off half their servers? (Hey, we can spur competition by making options worse!)

(Integration with other products, fine. [Though that doesn't seem to be a big issue with other media companies.] But I don't quite get the search engine angle.)

The likely avenue is to force them to divest of other properties -- primarly Chrome -- in order to reduce their ability to be set as a default search engine.

Yahoo article here probably explains that in more detail -- both reasons for and against -- than other articles I've seen when sort of mentioning it without much detail.

[ISiddiqui]

That's a great article that lays out the legal issues of divestment. Thanks Jon!

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

That's a great article that lays out the legal issues of divestment. Thanks Jon!

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

Thanks.

I'm not sure I buy the theory they're working under honestly, but then again I'm smart enough to know how to set my default search engine and homepage in any browser and have been doing so for at least a couple decades. Maybe I'm farther up the curve than I realize {shrug}

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

The likely avenue is to force them to divest of other properties -- primarly Chrome -- in order to reduce their ability to be set as a default search engine.

Yahoo article here probably explains that in more detail -- both reasons for and against -- than other articles I've seen when sort of mentioning it without much detail.

“What might work is to require, when a user searches, that a search engine reveal how much money it makes from the search and where that money comes from. Then consumers could infer how much trust to give to search results.”

What, are they going to captcha each search? Click here so you understand Google's business model before you see your results.

Sure, lawyer man.

This, though:

"In Eich’s estimation, without major changes, Chrome’s market share is destined to erode with or without the DOJs intervention, due to consumers’ privacy and security demands that are fueling shifts from browsers that don’t give users the efficiency and privacy they are starting to demand."

Maybe. I mean, if someone builds a better browser, market share may shift. First it was Netscape, then IE, then Mozilla, then Chrome...

What's funny to me is that I see little mention anywhere of Bing, which Microsoft tries to push along with its crap browser on every PC running Windows.

[Drake]

I think most of us are old enough to remember when there were multiple search engines...and then to remember why Google won those wars.

I can't decide if this is a legit lawsuit to encourage competition, or red meat for the base (who have argued for some time that Google violates their freedom of speech because it demonetizes Youtube videos). I'll completely set aside the foolishness of "they violated my free speech" given that Google isn't a government agency or representative...but given that the people complaining tend to be "capitalist solutions" folks, it always gives me a bit of a chuckle that government regulation is their solution here rather than just building their own better mousetrap and letting the market decide.

Now, if this is phase one in a larger attack to break Google up in competing units (i.e., search engine, Chrome, YouTube, etc.), then I think there's something to be said for intervening. But I'm not sure the average consumer is going to be thrilled with the consequences to services they enjoy if that happens.

[PilotMan]

Given that it comes from the trump just-us department I'm going to say it's the former, but I agree with you that if they really do want to look into breaking it up (along with so many other companies) than it'll be worthwhile. That's why I was surprised that it came from trump's administration. Normally, they aren't friendly to government intervention over big successful capitalist corporations.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Drake

But I'm not sure the average consumer is going to be thrilled with the consequences to services they enjoy if that happens.

Exactly so. If Chrome and Android are spun off into different companies (and then a search company that is allowed to keep YouTube) there are going to be frustrations that people are going to be upset about. And then imagine if similar rational is used to break up the Apple ecosystem (which is one of the big things Apple fans laud).

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Normally, they aren't friendly to government intervention over big successful capitalist corporations.

Allow me to provide the voice of cynicism on this one if you don't mind.

If they do require spinoffs to be sold to 3rd parties, I'd bet a dollar and two donuts that the likely buyer to emerge for one or more pieces will be friends of the current administration.

[ISiddiqui]

No doubt! But if Android was to be spun off, I could imagine Samsung, LG, etc to make bids to purchase. No one would want a competitor to buy the OS (however Samsung may just resurrect Tizen - the Play Store though is the real prize).

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

[molson]

This is why I only use excite.com

[Bobble]

And you guys thought I was a fool for keeping those AOL Online disks! Who's laughing now!?

[ISiddiqui]

Amusingly Google stock price rose yesterday.

There are rumors that DOJ employees are not happy Barr decided to file the Complaint now, as they don't think the case is ready yet. And the filing time was politically motivated, so they don't have as good of a case as they wanted before they went to Court.

[spleen1015]

What happens to the case when Trump loses? Just goes away?

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Kodos

Yes, catching killers is a nice side effect. But being denied insurance, or at least having to pay more because of a known issue, does not at all seem out of the realm of possibility. The government sells out the little guy to big business all the time.

One thing to point out here, if it wasn't obvious - the reason I mentioned GEDMatch in the original piece you clipped is that it's a voluntary and open DNA site. Law enforcement has no (current) means of tapping into Ancestry or 23andMe to use those results. That's why GEDMatch is so important.

So, your point remains valid, but specifically as to a free service such as GEDMatch, people should know what they are getting into and in fact, I believe they've now added a warning about the potential uses of this information. The proprietary sites you are paying for are understandably not willing to sell out their clients - at least not yet. I assume doing so would kill their businesses.

In terms of the insurance stuff, this is similar to credit scoring which is mostly allowed, but states have put guardrails on what an insurance company can do. Credit-based insurance scoring is used to predict which risk pool you should be placed in, but a number of states prohibit nonrenewals or cancellations based on credit score or making rating decisions based solely on credit score. I imagine something similar would be put in place if DNA information became part of the standard insurance risk modeling on an individual basis.

[Ksyrup]

On another related topic, we're all used to getting ads on our phone or computer tied to things we have searched for, but the thing that freaks me out way more is seeing ads for things that my wife and I have talked about. This is happening way too often the past year or so. And I mean specific stuff - a couple of times we've talked about buying a particular item for our dogs and within a day, I'm seeing a FB ad for this exact thing. No Google searches, nothing online, just talk.

[spleen1015]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

On another related topic, we're all used to getting ads on our phone or computer tied to things we have searched for, but the thing that freaks me out way more is seeing ads for things that my wife and I have talked about. This is happening way too often the past year or so. And I mean specific stuff - a couple of times we've talked about buying a particular item for our dogs and within a day, I'm seeing a FB ad for this exact thing. No Google searches, nothing online, just talk.

One of my more creepy experiences is going to a softball camp at Ball State and then get suggested friends on Facebook that were people at the camp that I didn't even talk to.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by spleen1015

One of my more creepy experiences is going to a softball camp at Ball State and then get suggested friends on Facebook that were people at the camp that I didn't even talk to.

Location tracking is on by default for a number of application. And the "in your area right now" is definitely an FB thing they like to push (so obviously they have the info whether you have that 'feature' highlighted or not)

[Kodos]

I limit my location tracking to stuff where it obviously related (running app, driving directions on the phone). Words With Friends doesn't need to know my location, for instance.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Kodos

I limit my location tracking to stuff where it obviously related (running app, driving directions on the phone). Words With Friends doesn't need to know my location, for instance.

Mine are largely off as well but that really doesn't stop it.

Facebook is particularly savvy in getting around it, and has admitted as much

"Even if someone does not enable Location Services, Facebook may still understand information about their location based on information that they and others provide through their activities and connections on our services."

Facebook reveals it can track users location even if they turn off location services | TechRadar

Though, in the anecdote that brought this up, it's probably more likely algorithm than location tracking. "Suggested Friends" is weighted pretty heavily toward recency and degrees-of-separation. If I interact online with, say, two people associated with my son's old school during a football Friday night then within 24-48 hours my People You May Know is suddenly populated with people I don't know but who may have 3 degrees separation from me. The connection being that the two people I interacted with are 1 degree separated from those new suggestions. (i.e. they don't know those people either, but both have friends who know those people)

It doesn't take much.

[Kodos]

I don't have the Facebook app, so that helps limit what they can know. I only go to Facebook in my browser.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by spleen1015

One of my more creepy experiences is going to a softball camp at Ball State and then get suggested friends on Facebook that were people at the camp that I didn't even talk to.

Oh, my son's freshman year we bowled a couple of games at the lanes in the student union. Afterwards I got a "you might know" for the girl who was working the counter.

(Son did know her from somewhere, but it was still kinda weird for her to show up on my FB.)

[sterlingice]

Yeah, it's all just a charade, sadly.

SI

[Raiders Army]

If you want creepy check out GPT-3.