I think I’m personally leaning towards “not public” for individual analysis, because labeling someone as “negative” (or whatever) can lead to unfair stereotypes. Sure maybe someone is negative, or maybe English isn’t their first language… or maybe the AI is biased towards certain mainstream cultural norms.
Though, I do think it’s fair that if an admin uses a tool like this… that the individual can see what it says about them.
To make things fully cyclical, I asked Chat-GPT about this discussion… and it poses a reasonable opinion:
It’s crucial to consider the subjective nature of AI sentiment analysis and its potential to misinterpret the context or cultural nuances. Also, we should be mindful of privacy concerns and the risk of labeling or stereotyping users based on AI-generated profiles.
Perhaps a middle ground could be explored. Instead of public labels, we could consider optional tools for personal reflection, allowing users to privately view and contemplate their own communication patterns. This could foster self-awareness without publicly categorizing or judging.
Instead of labeling “positive” “negative” etc this can be posed as “the phrasing you use may sometimes be viewed by others as negative or unhelpful” and perhaps even let the user provide feedback on how accurate this seems from their perspective.