You are a helpful assistant in evaluating the quality of the outputs for a given instruction. Your goal is to select the best output for the given instruction.

Select the Output (a) or Output (b) that is better for the given instruction. The two outputs are generated by two different AI chatbots respectively.

Here are some rules of the evaluation:
(1) You should prioritize evaluating whether the output honestly/precisely/closely executes the instruction, then consider its helpfulness, accuracy, level of detail, harmlessness, etc.
(2) Outputs should NOT contain more/less than what the instruction asks for, as such outputs do NOT precisely execute the instruction.
(3) You should avoid any potential bias and your judgment should be as objective as possible. For example, the order in which the outputs were presented should NOT affect your judgment, as Output (a) and Output (b) are **equally likely** to be the better.

Do NOT provide any explanation for your choice.
Do NOT say both / neither are good.
You should answer using ONLY "Output (a)" or "Output (b)". Do NOT output any other words.

# Instruction:
Here is an article:
Americans have praise for South Korea and Germany's handling of the coronavirus pandemic but give poor marks to Italy and China. What other attitudes do Americans hold when it comes to the global response to the outbreak? The Washington-based Pew Research Center, a public opinion polling and research organisation, took the temperature on how Americans think other countries have handled the pandemic. Pew surveyed 10,957 US adults from 29 April to 5 May for the poll. Here are some key takeaways. 1 - Praise for South Korea, criticism for China When it comes to the response to the global coronavirus pandemic, a majority of Americans give high marks to South Korea and Germany - in fact higher marks than they gave their own country. A majority of respondents gave both those countries a rating of either "good" or "excellent" for their efforts. Just under 50% of respondents said the same about the US response. South Korea's rapid ability to react to the virus spread and to set up a testing network has made the country a role model as other nations look to battle their own coronavirus outbreaks - though officials have had to respond to recent outbreaks linked to nightclubs and bars. Germany has also won praise for its response to the outbreak. Mass testing and effective lockdown restrictions have helped keep the death toll far lower than in other European countries, though infection rates have increased since its lockdown measures were eased. Americans placed the UK in the middle of the pack, roughly divided over its response. In contrast, a majority of Americans say China and Italy have not handled the outbreak well. In March, Italy was the worst-hit country by the pandemic after China. The US, which now has over 1.5 million known cases, overtook Italy's death toll in mid-April. An overwhelming majority of Americans say the US can learn from other countries about ways to slow the spread of the virus. "The American public is paying attention to how countries around the world are dealing with [the outbreak]," Richard Wike, Pew's director of global attitudes research, told the BBC. 2 - Partisan divide over WHO The World Health Organization (WHO) "is an organisation that probably wasn't on the radar for most Americans a few weeks ago", says Mr Wike. Now, Pew research indicates a sharp divide when it comes to the American public's attitudes towards it. WHO drew strong partisan reactions from respondents, with 62% of Democrats believing the agency has done either an excellent or good job of dealing with the pandemic - with just 28% of Republicans agreeing. There was also a divide when it came to trusting information on the virus coming from the WHO. About one-third of Republicans said they trusted WHO information versus 80% of Democrats. That division was even more stark when researchers polled liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans. Of those more left-leaning Democrats, 86% indicated they trusted the WHO. That fell sharply to 27% among more conservative Republicans. US President Donald Trump is not the WHO's only critic - other countries have raised questions about the agency's handling of the pandemic - but he has been the most vocal. This week he accused the agency of having "consistently ignored credible reports of the virus spreading in Wuhan in early December 2019 or even earlier" and of failing "to adequately obtain, vet and share information in a timely and transparent fashion". He has also halted funding to WHO, which he has labelled a "puppet of China". WHO chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus has defended the agency's response. He has agreed to an independent evaluation, which would look at what lessons could be learned and put forward any recommendation. Beijing has also defended its actions during the outbreak, saying the country has acted with openness and transparency. 3 - Coronavirus deepens China distrust The pandemic has worsened relations between Donald Trump's America and Xi Jinping's China. The President has repeatedly chosen to call the coronavirus the "Chinese virus", a term that has caused offense in Beijing. Mr Wike says negative views towards China among the American public are the highest since Pew began asking the question in 2005. He notes there has been a consistent partisan divide over the issue but that the numbers have been steadily trending towards unfavourable among both Democrat and Republican voters over the past few years. Americans have long had concerns about China in matters like trade and jobs, he says, and more recently on matters like cyber security and human rights. "The mix of issues [of concern] has gotten more diversified," he says. "Now coronavirus is part of the mix as well." Currently, 66% of Americans hold an unfavourable view of China. They are also distrustful of information coming from Chinese officials on the virus, with 84% of respondents saying they place "not too much or no trust" in Beijing's claims. And they are sceptical of China's handling of the virus, with 64% ranking the response as fair or poor. Those numbers skew slightly higher among Republicans and older Americans, who are more likely to say China has not handled the crisis well. 4 - Americans divided over US response Americans aren't just watching the foreign response to the contagion, the survey indicates. They are also weighing how their own country is handling the challenge. Just over half - 52% - are critical of the US response. In comparison, 47% say the US has done either an excellent or a good job in dealing with the outbreak. Respondents were not asked whether they reserved their criticism the federal or state government. They were surveyed on how good of a job the US has done in dealing with the coronavirus outbreak. In the US, it's up to states to maintain public order and safety and it has been state governors who have issued lockdown or shelter-in-place orders - and who have since eased restrictions to varying degrees. The federal government has coordinated the overall response, dealing with matters like fiscal aid packages, testing, and equipment. A number of states have seen protests against the lockdown orders aimed at limiting the spread of Covid-19.

Here is a summary requirement:
Summarize Americans' opinions on South Korea and Germany's handling of the coronavirus pandemic.

Please summarize the above article based on the given requirement:

# Output (a):
According to a survey conducted by the Pew Research Center, a majority of Americans give high marks to South Korea and Germany for their handling of the coronavirus pandemic, rating their efforts as either "good" or "excellent". South Korea's rapid response and testing network have made it a role model for other nations, while Germany's mass testing and effective lockdown restrictions have helped keep the death toll far lower than in other European countries. In contrast, a majority of Americans say China and Italy have not handled the outbreak well.

# Output (b):
A majority of Americans praise South Korea and Germany for their handling of the coronavirus pandemic, giving them higher marks than their own country, according to a poll conducted by the Pew Research Center. Respondents appreciated South Korea's rapid response and testing network, as well as Germany's mass testing and effective lockdown restrictions, which have helped keep the death toll lower than in other European countries.

# Which is better, Output (a) or Output (b)? Your response should be either "Output (a)" or "Output (b)":

Output (b)

Instruction:
Here is an article:
Americans have praise for South Korea and Germany's handling of the coronavirus pandemic but give poor marks to Italy and China. What other attitudes do Americans hold when it comes to the global response to the outbreak? The Washington-based Pew Research Center, a public opinion polling and research organisation, took the temperature on how Americans think other countries have handled the pandemic. Pew surveyed 10,957 US adults from 29 April to 5 May for the poll. Here are some key takeaways. 1 - Praise for South Korea, criticism for China When it comes to the response to the global coronavirus pandemic, a majority of Americans give high marks to South Korea and Germany - in fact higher marks than they gave their own country. A majority of respondents gave both those countries a rating of either "good" or "excellent" for their efforts. Just under 50% of respondents said the same about the US response. South Korea's rapid ability to react to the virus spread and to set up a testing network has made the country a role model as other nations look to battle their own coronavirus outbreaks - though officials have had to respond to recent outbreaks linked to nightclubs and bars. Germany has also won praise for its response to the outbreak. Mass testing and effective lockdown restrictions have helped keep the death toll far lower than in other European countries, though infection rates have increased since its lockdown measures were eased. Americans placed the UK in the middle of the pack, roughly divided over its response. In contrast, a majority of Americans say China and Italy have not handled the outbreak well. In March, Italy was the worst-hit country by the pandemic after China. The US, which now has over 1.5 million known cases, overtook Italy's death toll in mid-April. An overwhelming majority of Americans say the US can learn from other countries about ways to slow the spread of the virus. "The American public is paying attention to how countries around the world are dealing with [the outbreak]," Richard Wike, Pew's director of global attitudes research, told the BBC. 2 - Partisan divide over WHO The World Health Organization (WHO) "is an organisation that probably wasn't on the radar for most Americans a few weeks ago", says Mr Wike. Now, Pew research indicates a sharp divide when it comes to the American public's attitudes towards it. WHO drew strong partisan reactions from respondents, with 62% of Democrats believing the agency has done either an excellent or good job of dealing with the pandemic - with just 28% of Republicans agreeing. There was also a divide when it came to trusting information on the virus coming from the WHO. About one-third of Republicans said they trusted WHO information versus 80% of Democrats. That division was even more stark when researchers polled liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans. Of those more left-leaning Democrats, 86% indicated they trusted the WHO. That fell sharply to 27% among more conservative Republicans. US President Donald Trump is not the WHO's only critic - other countries have raised questions about the agency's handling of the pandemic - but he has been the most vocal. This week he accused the agency of having "consistently ignored credible reports of the virus spreading in Wuhan in early December 2019 or even earlier" and of failing "to adequately obtain, vet and share information in a timely and transparent fashion". He has also halted funding to WHO, which he has labelled a "puppet of China". WHO chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus has defended the agency's response. He has agreed to an independent evaluation, which would look at what lessons could be learned and put forward any recommendation. Beijing has also defended its actions during the outbreak, saying the country has acted with openness and transparency. 3 - Coronavirus deepens China distrust The pandemic has worsened relations between Donald Trump's America and Xi Jinping's China. The President has repeatedly chosen to call the coronavirus the "Chinese virus", a term that has caused offense in Beijing. Mr Wike says negative views towards China among the American public are the highest since Pew began asking the question in 2005. He notes there has been a consistent partisan divide over the issue but that the numbers have been steadily trending towards unfavourable among both Democrat and Republican voters over the past few years. Americans have long had concerns about China in matters like trade and jobs, he says, and more recently on matters like cyber security and human rights. "The mix of issues [of concern] has gotten more diversified," he says. "Now coronavirus is part of the mix as well." Currently, 66% of Americans hold an unfavourable view of China. They are also distrustful of information coming from Chinese officials on the virus, with 84% of respondents saying they place "not too much or no trust" in Beijing's claims. And they are sceptical of China's handling of the virus, with 64% ranking the response as fair or poor. Those numbers skew slightly higher among Republicans and older Americans, who are more likely to say China has not handled the crisis well. 4 - Americans divided over US response Americans aren't just watching the foreign response to the contagion, the survey indicates. They are also weighing how their own country is handling the challenge. Just over half - 52% - are critical of the US response. In comparison, 47% say the US has done either an excellent or a good job in dealing with the outbreak. Respondents were not asked whether they reserved their criticism the federal or state government. They were surveyed on how good of a job the US has done in dealing with the coronavirus outbreak. In the US, it's up to states to maintain public order and safety and it has been state governors who have issued lockdown or shelter-in-place orders - and who have since eased restrictions to varying degrees. The federal government has coordinated the overall response, dealing with matters like fiscal aid packages, testing, and equipment. A number of states have seen protests against the lockdown orders aimed at limiting the spread of Covid-19.

Here is a summary requirement:
Summarize Americans' opinions on South Korea and Germany's handling of the coronavirus pandemic.

Please summarize the above article based on the given requirement:

According to a survey conducted by the Pew Research Center, a majority of Americans give high marks to South Korea and Germany for their handling of the coronavirus pandemic, rating their efforts as either "good" or "excellent". South Korea's rapid response and testing network have made it a role model for other nations, while Germany's mass testing and effective lockdown restrictions have helped keep the death toll far lower than in other European countries. In contrast, a majority of Americans say China and Italy have not handled the outbreak well.

A majority of Americans praise South Korea and Germany for their handling of the coronavirus pandemic, giving them higher marks than their own country, according to a poll conducted by the Pew Research Center. Respondents appreciated South Korea's rapid response and testing network, as well as Germany's mass testing and effective lockdown restrictions, which have helped keep the death toll lower than in other European countries.


You are a helpful assistant in evaluating the quality of the outputs for a given instruction. Your goal is to select the best output for the given instruction.

Select the Output (a) or Output (b) that is better for the given instruction. The two outputs are generated by two different AI chatbots respectively.

Here are some rules of the evaluation:
(1) You should prioritize evaluating whether the output honestly/precisely/closely executes the instruction, then consider its helpfulness, accuracy, level of detail, harmlessness, etc.
(2) Outputs should NOT contain more/less than what the instruction asks for, as such outputs do NOT precisely execute the instruction.
(3) You should avoid any potential bias and your judgment should be as objective as possible. For example, the order in which the outputs were presented should NOT affect your judgment, as Output (a) and Output (b) are **equally likely** to be the better.

Do NOT provide any explanation for your choice.
Do NOT say both / neither are good.
You should answer using ONLY "Output (a)" or "Output (b)". Do NOT output any other words.

# Instruction:
Here is an article:
Americans have praise for South Korea and Germany's handling of the coronavirus pandemic but give poor marks to Italy and China. What other attitudes do Americans hold when it comes to the global response to the outbreak? The Washington-based Pew Research Center, a public opinion polling and research organisation, took the temperature on how Americans think other countries have handled the pandemic. Pew surveyed 10,957 US adults from 29 April to 5 May for the poll. Here are some key takeaways. 1 - Praise for South Korea, criticism for China When it comes to the response to the global coronavirus pandemic, a majority of Americans give high marks to South Korea and Germany - in fact higher marks than they gave their own country. A majority of respondents gave both those countries a rating of either "good" or "excellent" for their efforts. Just under 50% of respondents said the same about the US response. South Korea's rapid ability to react to the virus spread and to set up a testing network has made the country a role model as other nations look to battle their own coronavirus outbreaks - though officials have had to respond to recent outbreaks linked to nightclubs and bars. Germany has also won praise for its response to the outbreak. Mass testing and effective lockdown restrictions have helped keep the death toll far lower than in other European countries, though infection rates have increased since its lockdown measures were eased. Americans placed the UK in the middle of the pack, roughly divided over its response. In contrast, a majority of Americans say China and Italy have not handled the outbreak well. In March, Italy was the worst-hit country by the pandemic after China. The US, which now has over 1.5 million known cases, overtook Italy's death toll in mid-April. An overwhelming majority of Americans say the US can learn from other countries about ways to slow the spread of the virus. "The American public is paying attention to how countries around the world are dealing with [the outbreak]," Richard Wike, Pew's director of global attitudes research, told the BBC. 2 - Partisan divide over WHO The World Health Organization (WHO) "is an organisation that probably wasn't on the radar for most Americans a few weeks ago", says Mr Wike. Now, Pew research indicates a sharp divide when it comes to the American public's attitudes towards it. WHO drew strong partisan reactions from respondents, with 62% of Democrats believing the agency has done either an excellent or good job of dealing with the pandemic - with just 28% of Republicans agreeing. There was also a divide when it came to trusting information on the virus coming from the WHO. About one-third of Republicans said they trusted WHO information versus 80% of Democrats. That division was even more stark when researchers polled liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans. Of those more left-leaning Democrats, 86% indicated they trusted the WHO. That fell sharply to 27% among more conservative Republicans. US President Donald Trump is not the WHO's only critic - other countries have raised questions about the agency's handling of the pandemic - but he has been the most vocal. This week he accused the agency of having "consistently ignored credible reports of the virus spreading in Wuhan in early December 2019 or even earlier" and of failing "to adequately obtain, vet and share information in a timely and transparent fashion". He has also halted funding to WHO, which he has labelled a "puppet of China". WHO chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus has defended the agency's response. He has agreed to an independent evaluation, which would look at what lessons could be learned and put forward any recommendation. Beijing has also defended its actions during the outbreak, saying the country has acted with openness and transparency. 3 - Coronavirus deepens China distrust The pandemic has worsened relations between Donald Trump's America and Xi Jinping's China. The President has repeatedly chosen to call the coronavirus the "Chinese virus", a term that has caused offense in Beijing. Mr Wike says negative views towards China among the American public are the highest since Pew began asking the question in 2005. He notes there has been a consistent partisan divide over the issue but that the numbers have been steadily trending towards unfavourable among both Democrat and Republican voters over the past few years. Americans have long had concerns about China in matters like trade and jobs, he says, and more recently on matters like cyber security and human rights. "The mix of issues [of concern] has gotten more diversified," he says. "Now coronavirus is part of the mix as well." Currently, 66% of Americans hold an unfavourable view of China. They are also distrustful of information coming from Chinese officials on the virus, with 84% of respondents saying they place "not too much or no trust" in Beijing's claims. And they are sceptical of China's handling of the virus, with 64% ranking the response as fair or poor. Those numbers skew slightly higher among Republicans and older Americans, who are more likely to say China has not handled the crisis well. 4 - Americans divided over US response Americans aren't just watching the foreign response to the contagion, the survey indicates. They are also weighing how their own country is handling the challenge. Just over half - 52% - are critical of the US response. In comparison, 47% say the US has done either an excellent or a good job in dealing with the outbreak. Respondents were not asked whether they reserved their criticism the federal or state government. They were surveyed on how good of a job the US has done in dealing with the coronavirus outbreak. In the US, it's up to states to maintain public order and safety and it has been state governors who have issued lockdown or shelter-in-place orders - and who have since eased restrictions to varying degrees. The federal government has coordinated the overall response, dealing with matters like fiscal aid packages, testing, and equipment. A number of states have seen protests against the lockdown orders aimed at limiting the spread of Covid-19.

Here is a summary requirement:
Summarize Americans' opinions on South Korea and Germany's handling of the coronavirus pandemic.

Please summarize the above article based on the given requirement:

# Output (a):
According to a survey conducted by the Pew Research Center, a majority of Americans give high marks to South Korea and Germany for their handling of the coronavirus pandemic, rating their efforts as either "good" or "excellent". South Korea's rapid response and testing network have made it a role model for other nations, while Germany's mass testing and effective lockdown restrictions have helped keep the death toll far lower than in other European countries. In contrast, a majority of Americans say China and Italy have not handled the outbreak well.

# Output (b):
A majority of Americans praise South Korea and Germany for their handling of the coronavirus pandemic, giving them higher marks than their own country, according to a poll conducted by the Pew Research Center. Respondents appreciated South Korea's rapid response and testing network, as well as Germany's mass testing and effective lockdown restrictions, which have helped keep the death toll lower than in other European countries.

# Which is better, Output (a) or Output (b)? Your response should be either "Output (a)" or "Output (b)":

Output (b)

Instruction:
Here is an article:
Americans have praise for South Korea and Germany's handling of the coronavirus pandemic but give poor marks to Italy and China. What other attitudes do Americans hold when it comes to the global response to the outbreak? The Washington-based Pew Research Center, a public opinion polling and research organisation, took the temperature on how Americans think other countries have handled the pandemic. Pew surveyed 10,957 US adults from 29 April to 5 May for the poll. Here are some key takeaways. 1 - Praise for South Korea, criticism for China When it comes to the response to the global coronavirus pandemic, a majority of Americans give high marks to South Korea and Germany - in fact higher marks than they gave their own country. A majority of respondents gave both those countries a rating of either "good" or "excellent" for their efforts. Just under 50% of respondents said the same about the US response. South Korea's rapid ability to react to the virus spread and to set up a testing network has made the country a role model as other nations look to battle their own coronavirus outbreaks - though officials have had to respond to recent outbreaks linked to nightclubs and bars. Germany has also won praise for its response to the outbreak. Mass testing and effective lockdown restrictions have helped keep the death toll far lower than in other European countries, though infection rates have increased since its lockdown measures were eased. Americans placed the UK in the middle of the pack, roughly divided over its response. In contrast, a majority of Americans say China and Italy have not handled the outbreak well. In March, Italy was the worst-hit country by the pandemic after China. The US, which now has over 1.5 million known cases, overtook Italy's death toll in mid-April. An overwhelming majority of Americans say the US can learn from other countries about ways to slow the spread of the virus. "The American public is paying attention to how countries around the world are dealing with [the outbreak]," Richard Wike, Pew's director of global attitudes research, told the BBC. 2 - Partisan divide over WHO The World Health Organization (WHO) "is an organisation that probably wasn't on the radar for most Americans a few weeks ago", says Mr Wike. Now, Pew research indicates a sharp divide when it comes to the American public's attitudes towards it. WHO drew strong partisan reactions from respondents, with 62% of Democrats believing the agency has done either an excellent or good job of dealing with the pandemic - with just 28% of Republicans agreeing. There was also a divide when it came to trusting information on the virus coming from the WHO. About one-third of Republicans said they trusted WHO information versus 80% of Democrats. That division was even more stark when researchers polled liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans. Of those more left-leaning Democrats, 86% indicated they trusted the WHO. That fell sharply to 27% among more conservative Republicans. US President Donald Trump is not the WHO's only critic - other countries have raised questions about the agency's handling of the pandemic - but he has been the most vocal. This week he accused the agency of having "consistently ignored credible reports of the virus spreading in Wuhan in early December 2019 or even earlier" and of failing "to adequately obtain, vet and share information in a timely and transparent fashion". He has also halted funding to WHO, which he has labelled a "puppet of China". WHO chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus has defended the agency's response. He has agreed to an independent evaluation, which would look at what lessons could be learned and put forward any recommendation. Beijing has also defended its actions during the outbreak, saying the country has acted with openness and transparency. 3 - Coronavirus deepens China distrust The pandemic has worsened relations between Donald Trump's America and Xi Jinping's China. The President has repeatedly chosen to call the coronavirus the "Chinese virus", a term that has caused offense in Beijing. Mr Wike says negative views towards China among the American public are the highest since Pew began asking the question in 2005. He notes there has been a consistent partisan divide over the issue but that the numbers have been steadily trending towards unfavourable among both Democrat and Republican voters over the past few years. Americans have long had concerns about China in matters like trade and jobs, he says, and more recently on matters like cyber security and human rights. "The mix of issues [of concern] has gotten more diversified," he says. "Now coronavirus is part of the mix as well." Currently, 66% of Americans hold an unfavourable view of China. They are also distrustful of information coming from Chinese officials on the virus, with 84% of respondents saying they place "not too much or no trust" in Beijing's claims. And they are sceptical of China's handling of the virus, with 64% ranking the response as fair or poor. Those numbers skew slightly higher among Republicans and older Americans, who are more likely to say China has not handled the crisis well. 4 - Americans divided over US response Americans aren't just watching the foreign response to the contagion, the survey indicates. They are also weighing how their own country is handling the challenge. Just over half - 52% - are critical of the US response. In comparison, 47% say the US has done either an excellent or a good job in dealing with the outbreak. Respondents were not asked whether they reserved their criticism the federal or state government. They were surveyed on how good of a job the US has done in dealing with the coronavirus outbreak. In the US, it's up to states to maintain public order and safety and it has been state governors who have issued lockdown or shelter-in-place orders - and who have since eased restrictions to varying degrees. The federal government has coordinated the overall response, dealing with matters like fiscal aid packages, testing, and equipment. A number of states have seen protests against the lockdown orders aimed at limiting the spread of Covid-19.

Here is a summary requirement:
Summarize Americans' opinions on South Korea and Germany's handling of the coronavirus pandemic.

Please summarize the above article based on the given requirement:

According to a survey conducted by the Pew Research Center, a majority of Americans give high marks to South Korea and Germany for their handling of the coronavirus pandemic, rating their efforts as either "good" or "excellent". South Korea's rapid response and testing network have made it a role model for other nations, while Germany's mass testing and effective lockdown restrictions have helped keep the death toll far lower than in other European countries. In contrast, a majority of Americans say China and Italy have not handled the outbreak well.

A majority of Americans praise South Korea and Germany for their handling of the coronavirus pandemic, giving them higher marks than their own country, according to a poll conducted by the Pew Research Center. Respondents appreciated South Korea's rapid response and testing network, as well as Germany's mass testing and effective lockdown restrictions, which have helped keep the death toll lower than in other European countries.


You are a helpful assistant in evaluating the quality of the outputs for a given instruction. Your goal is to select the best output for the given instruction.

Select the Output (a) or Output (b) that is better for the given instruction. The two outputs are generated by two different AI chatbots respectively.

Here are some rules of the evaluation:
(1) You should prioritize evaluating whether the output honestly/precisely/closely executes the instruction, then consider its helpfulness, accuracy, level of detail, harmlessness, etc.
(2) Outputs should NOT contain more/less than what the instruction asks for, as such outputs do NOT precisely execute the instruction.
(3) You should avoid any potential bias and your judgment should be as objective as possible. For example, the order in which the outputs were presented should NOT affect your judgment, as Output (a) and Output (b) are **equally likely** to be the better.

Do NOT provide any explanation for your choice.
Do NOT say both / neither are good.
You should answer using ONLY "Output (a)" or "Output (b)". Do NOT output any other words.

# Instruction:
Here is an article:
As our identities become more entrenched on the web, a slew of apps want us to return to an earlier era of anonymity on the internet. But can apps such as Secret - which has just launched on Android - really keep our identities, well, secret? By Kim GittlesonBBC technology reporter, New York Think back to an AOL chatroom. Wait for the modem to sing its song, click the connect button, find a room - and inevitably, the first question you're asked as soon as you log in is "a/s/l?" - age/sex/location. In other words: "Who are you?" For many people, this was the defining feature of the internet: anonymity. A place where screen names and loose identification protocols made the web, by default, an opaque place. Today, our digital identities adhere ever more closely to our real lives, with Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram allowing real-time and often permanent imprints of our existence. While alleviating one concern - identification - they have created another: is there any way to be open on the internet anymore, without fear of reprisal? That is why a whole host of firms are arguing that it is time to return to, or at least make space for, anonymity. The best version "You look at all of these services like Facebook and Instagram, and they're all about let me show you the best version of me," argues Whisper co-founder Michael Heyward. "It's essentially this highlight reel - Whisper is about showing people the behind the scenes stuff that we're not always comfortable posting on Facebook." Whisper allows users to download an app and then post anonymous statements - everything from "do you like this outfit?" to "I'm worried I suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder". Users can then like statements they identify with or think are funny. Mr Heyward likens it to the Catholic concept of a confession - but a confession that also operates as a business. Whisper has raised over $60m (£36m) since being founded two years ago. "I think we're really well positioned to own anonymity," he says. Big business But Mr Heyward isn't the only one to realise that both the intrusion of social networks into our "real lives" and the Edward Snowden US government spying revelations have led to an increased desire for anonymity on the web. And, of course, capitalising on that desire for anonymity could be big business. Secret, founded in October and launched in January by two former Google employees, Chrys Bader-Wechseler and David Byttow, has already raised $11.5m. Unlike Whisper, it accesses your phone's contacts and only shows you Secrets from friends or friends of friends. It was a hit with iPhone users in Silicon Valley, where they posted juicy titbits, including news of which tech start-ups had been bought for millions and, most notably, broke news of layoffs at Nike. And the app has just been made available in all countries both on iOS and Android. Mr Bader-Wecheseler says that the duo didn't design the app with the concept of whistle-blowing in mind. But now "we constantly ask ourselves is whistle-blowing important, and we think so". Marketing gimmick But thinking whistle-blowing is important and promising anonymity are two very different things. "The problem with apps on mobile phones is that, well, it's a mobile phone," says Runi Sandvik, a technologist at the Center for Democracy and Technology. "It's tied to you in some way or another and this identifier is often passed to the makers of these applications. So even if these apps on their website are promising you anonymity, if asked or required they will hand over your information to law enforcement." Ms Sandvik says that promises of anonymity are thus essentially a "marketing gimmick" because "you don't want to advertise an app that promises semi-anonymity". And it is not just users who could find themselves in hot water. University of Maryland law professor James Grimmelman notes that Snapchat, the self-deleting photo messaging app, recently got into hot water with US authorities over promises that images could not be stored. "If users can be identified you cannot promise anonymity," he says. He adds that the Nike leak also could cause legal issues, including leaking trade secrets and raising questions about insider trading. Getting swept along That's why perhaps "it's more about pseudo-nymity - the ability to have a real identity but being able to turn it off when you want to," says Dil-Domine Leonares, founder of an app called Breakr, which allows users anonymously join chatrooms based on their location. That is a sentiment echoed, in some part, by Secret's founders, who insist the app isn't all about whistle-blowing. "Facebook trained us to curate our identity - I think Secret can train us in empathy," says Mr Bader-Wechseler. But that assumes - or presumes - that what people have to share is not mean, or slanderous, or just simply banal. One recent Secret read: "Just spent 45 min trying to teach my cat a trick. He didn't get it. We'll work on it tomorrow." Not exactly the stuff that moves mountains. But then again, scroll down a bit and I found "Twitch.tv is rumored to have been acquired for $1b. Any big paydays for non-execs?" - something a bit more up my alley as a technology journalist. Scroll down once more, this time on Whisper, and I found out that the ex-wife of a prominent technology executive was now dating. And therein lies the question: are these apps about sharing feelings that can't be expressed publicly, leaking corporate secrets, or, simply trading in something that pre-dates the iPhone: gossip? There's also the less philosophical, more practical issue, the word that is almost never spoken in the bubbly world of Silicon Valley: profits. "We think about it every now and then but we haven't invested resources in solving this problem," says Mr Bader-Wechseler.

Here is a summary requirement:
Summarize the information of different apps mentioned in this article.

Please summarize the above article based on the given requirement:

# Output (a):
The article discusses different apps that allow for anonymity on the internet. These apps include Secret, Whisper, and Breakr. The article discusses the pros and cons of these apps, as well as the potential legal issues that could arise from using them.

# Output (b):
This article discusses the trend of apps that are allowing users to return to an era of anonymity on the internet. It mentions Whisper, which allows users to post anonymous statements, and Secret, which accesses users' phone contacts and only shows them secrets from friends or friends of friends. It also mentions Breakr, which allows users to anonymously join chatrooms based on their location. These apps have raised millions of dollars in funding and have been met with both enthusiasm and skepticism. While they promise anonymity, there is still the potential for users to be identified and for legal issues to arise.

# Which is better, Output (a) or Output (b)? Your response should be either "Output (a)" or "Output (b)":

Output (b)

Instruction:
Here is an article:
As our identities become more entrenched on the web, a slew of apps want us to return to an earlier era of anonymity on the internet. But can apps such as Secret - which has just launched on Android - really keep our identities, well, secret? By Kim GittlesonBBC technology reporter, New York Think back to an AOL chatroom. Wait for the modem to sing its song, click the connect button, find a room - and inevitably, the first question you're asked as soon as you log in is "a/s/l?" - age/sex/location. In other words: "Who are you?" For many people, this was the defining feature of the internet: anonymity. A place where screen names and loose identification protocols made the web, by default, an opaque place. Today, our digital identities adhere ever more closely to our real lives, with Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram allowing real-time and often permanent imprints of our existence. While alleviating one concern - identification - they have created another: is there any way to be open on the internet anymore, without fear of reprisal? That is why a whole host of firms are arguing that it is time to return to, or at least make space for, anonymity. The best version "You look at all of these services like Facebook and Instagram, and they're all about let me show you the best version of me," argues Whisper co-founder Michael Heyward. "It's essentially this highlight reel - Whisper is about showing people the behind the scenes stuff that we're not always comfortable posting on Facebook." Whisper allows users to download an app and then post anonymous statements - everything from "do you like this outfit?" to "I'm worried I suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder". Users can then like statements they identify with or think are funny. Mr Heyward likens it to the Catholic concept of a confession - but a confession that also operates as a business. Whisper has raised over $60m (£36m) since being founded two years ago. "I think we're really well positioned to own anonymity," he says. Big business But Mr Heyward isn't the only one to realise that both the intrusion of social networks into our "real lives" and the Edward Snowden US government spying revelations have led to an increased desire for anonymity on the web. And, of course, capitalising on that desire for anonymity could be big business. Secret, founded in October and launched in January by two former Google employees, Chrys Bader-Wechseler and David Byttow, has already raised $11.5m. Unlike Whisper, it accesses your phone's contacts and only shows you Secrets from friends or friends of friends. It was a hit with iPhone users in Silicon Valley, where they posted juicy titbits, including news of which tech start-ups had been bought for millions and, most notably, broke news of layoffs at Nike. And the app has just been made available in all countries both on iOS and Android. Mr Bader-Wecheseler says that the duo didn't design the app with the concept of whistle-blowing in mind. But now "we constantly ask ourselves is whistle-blowing important, and we think so". Marketing gimmick But thinking whistle-blowing is important and promising anonymity are two very different things. "The problem with apps on mobile phones is that, well, it's a mobile phone," says Runi Sandvik, a technologist at the Center for Democracy and Technology. "It's tied to you in some way or another and this identifier is often passed to the makers of these applications. So even if these apps on their website are promising you anonymity, if asked or required they will hand over your information to law enforcement." Ms Sandvik says that promises of anonymity are thus essentially a "marketing gimmick" because "you don't want to advertise an app that promises semi-anonymity". And it is not just users who could find themselves in hot water. University of Maryland law professor James Grimmelman notes that Snapchat, the self-deleting photo messaging app, recently got into hot water with US authorities over promises that images could not be stored. "If users can be identified you cannot promise anonymity," he says. He adds that the Nike leak also could cause legal issues, including leaking trade secrets and raising questions about insider trading. Getting swept along That's why perhaps "it's more about pseudo-nymity - the ability to have a real identity but being able to turn it off when you want to," says Dil-Domine Leonares, founder of an app called Breakr, which allows users anonymously join chatrooms based on their location. That is a sentiment echoed, in some part, by Secret's founders, who insist the app isn't all about whistle-blowing. "Facebook trained us to curate our identity - I think Secret can train us in empathy," says Mr Bader-Wechseler. But that assumes - or presumes - that what people have to share is not mean, or slanderous, or just simply banal. One recent Secret read: "Just spent 45 min trying to teach my cat a trick. He didn't get it. We'll work on it tomorrow." Not exactly the stuff that moves mountains. But then again, scroll down a bit and I found "Twitch.tv is rumored to have been acquired for $1b. Any big paydays for non-execs?" - something a bit more up my alley as a technology journalist. Scroll down once more, this time on Whisper, and I found out that the ex-wife of a prominent technology executive was now dating. And therein lies the question: are these apps about sharing feelings that can't be expressed publicly, leaking corporate secrets, or, simply trading in something that pre-dates the iPhone: gossip? There's also the less philosophical, more practical issue, the word that is almost never spoken in the bubbly world of Silicon Valley: profits. "We think about it every now and then but we haven't invested resources in solving this problem," says Mr Bader-Wechseler.

Here is a summary requirement:
Summarize the information of different apps mentioned in this article.

Please summarize the above article based on the given requirement:

The article discusses different apps that allow for anonymity on the internet. These apps include Secret, Whisper, and Breakr. The article discusses the pros and cons of these apps, as well as the potential legal issues that could arise from using them.

This article discusses the trend of apps that are allowing users to return to an era of anonymity on the internet. It mentions Whisper, which allows users to post anonymous statements, and Secret, which accesses users' phone contacts and only shows them secrets from friends or friends of friends. It also mentions Breakr, which allows users to anonymously join chatrooms based on their location. These apps have raised millions of dollars in funding and have been met with both enthusiasm and skepticism. While they promise anonymity, there is still the potential for users to be identified and for legal issues to arise.


You are a helpful assistant in evaluating the quality of the outputs for a given instruction. Your goal is to select the best output for the given instruction.

Select the Output (a) or Output (b) that is better for the given instruction. The two outputs are generated by two different AI chatbots respectively.

Here are some rules of the evaluation:
(1) You should prioritize evaluating whether the output honestly/precisely/closely executes the instruction, then consider its helpfulness, accuracy, level of detail, harmlessness, etc.
(2) Outputs should NOT contain more/less than what the instruction asks for, as such outputs do NOT precisely execute the instruction.
(3) You should avoid any potential bias and your judgment should be as objective as possible. For example, the order in which the outputs were presented should NOT affect your judgment, as Output (a) and Output (b) are **equally likely** to be the better.

Do NOT provide any explanation for your choice.
Do NOT say both / neither are good.
You should answer using ONLY "Output (a)" or "Output (b)". Do NOT output any other words.

# Instruction:
Here is an article:
As our identities become more entrenched on the web, a slew of apps want us to return to an earlier era of anonymity on the internet. But can apps such as Secret - which has just launched on Android - really keep our identities, well, secret? By Kim GittlesonBBC technology reporter, New York Think back to an AOL chatroom. Wait for the modem to sing its song, click the connect button, find a room - and inevitably, the first question you're asked as soon as you log in is "a/s/l?" - age/sex/location. In other words: "Who are you?" For many people, this was the defining feature of the internet: anonymity. A place where screen names and loose identification protocols made the web, by default, an opaque place. Today, our digital identities adhere ever more closely to our real lives, with Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram allowing real-time and often permanent imprints of our existence. While alleviating one concern - identification - they have created another: is there any way to be open on the internet anymore, without fear of reprisal? That is why a whole host of firms are arguing that it is time to return to, or at least make space for, anonymity. The best version "You look at all of these services like Facebook and Instagram, and they're all about let me show you the best version of me," argues Whisper co-founder Michael Heyward. "It's essentially this highlight reel - Whisper is about showing people the behind the scenes stuff that we're not always comfortable posting on Facebook." Whisper allows users to download an app and then post anonymous statements - everything from "do you like this outfit?" to "I'm worried I suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder". Users can then like statements they identify with or think are funny. Mr Heyward likens it to the Catholic concept of a confession - but a confession that also operates as a business. Whisper has raised over $60m (£36m) since being founded two years ago. "I think we're really well positioned to own anonymity," he says. Big business But Mr Heyward isn't the only one to realise that both the intrusion of social networks into our "real lives" and the Edward Snowden US government spying revelations have led to an increased desire for anonymity on the web. And, of course, capitalising on that desire for anonymity could be big business. Secret, founded in October and launched in January by two former Google employees, Chrys Bader-Wechseler and David Byttow, has already raised $11.5m. Unlike Whisper, it accesses your phone's contacts and only shows you Secrets from friends or friends of friends. It was a hit with iPhone users in Silicon Valley, where they posted juicy titbits, including news of which tech start-ups had been bought for millions and, most notably, broke news of layoffs at Nike. And the app has just been made available in all countries both on iOS and Android. Mr Bader-Wecheseler says that the duo didn't design the app with the concept of whistle-blowing in mind. But now "we constantly ask ourselves is whistle-blowing important, and we think so". Marketing gimmick But thinking whistle-blowing is important and promising anonymity are two very different things. "The problem with apps on mobile phones is that, well, it's a mobile phone," says Runi Sandvik, a technologist at the Center for Democracy and Technology. "It's tied to you in some way or another and this identifier is often passed to the makers of these applications. So even if these apps on their website are promising you anonymity, if asked or required they will hand over your information to law enforcement." Ms Sandvik says that promises of anonymity are thus essentially a "marketing gimmick" because "you don't want to advertise an app that promises semi-anonymity". And it is not just users who could find themselves in hot water. University of Maryland law professor James Grimmelman notes that Snapchat, the self-deleting photo messaging app, recently got into hot water with US authorities over promises that images could not be stored. "If users can be identified you cannot promise anonymity," he says. He adds that the Nike leak also could cause legal issues, including leaking trade secrets and raising questions about insider trading. Getting swept along That's why perhaps "it's more about pseudo-nymity - the ability to have a real identity but being able to turn it off when you want to," says Dil-Domine Leonares, founder of an app called Breakr, which allows users anonymously join chatrooms based on their location. That is a sentiment echoed, in some part, by Secret's founders, who insist the app isn't all about whistle-blowing. "Facebook trained us to curate our identity - I think Secret can train us in empathy," says Mr Bader-Wechseler. But that assumes - or presumes - that what people have to share is not mean, or slanderous, or just simply banal. One recent Secret read: "Just spent 45 min trying to teach my cat a trick. He didn't get it. We'll work on it tomorrow." Not exactly the stuff that moves mountains. But then again, scroll down a bit and I found "Twitch.tv is rumored to have been acquired for $1b. Any big paydays for non-execs?" - something a bit more up my alley as a technology journalist. Scroll down once more, this time on Whisper, and I found out that the ex-wife of a prominent technology executive was now dating. And therein lies the question: are these apps about sharing feelings that can't be expressed publicly, leaking corporate secrets, or, simply trading in something that pre-dates the iPhone: gossip? There's also the less philosophical, more practical issue, the word that is almost never spoken in the bubbly world of Silicon Valley: profits. "We think about it every now and then but we haven't invested resources in solving this problem," says Mr Bader-Wechseler.

Here is a summary requirement:
Summarize the information of different apps mentioned in this article.

Please summarize the above article based on the given requirement:

# Output (a):
The article discusses various apps that aim to provide anonymity on the internet. Whisper, co-founded by Michael Heyward, allows users to post anonymous statements and has raised over $60m since its founding two years ago. Secret, founded by two former Google employees, Chrys Bader-Wechseler and David Byttow, has raised $11.5m and accesses users' phone contacts to show Secrets from friends or friends of friends. Breakr, founded by Dil-Domine Leonares, allows users to anonymously join chatrooms based on their location.

# Output (b):
The article discusses different apps that allow for anonymity on the internet. These apps include Secret, Whisper, and Breakr. The article discusses the pros and cons of these apps, as well as the potential legal issues that could arise from using them.

# Which is better, Output (a) or Output (b)? Your response should be either "Output (a)" or "Output (b)":

Output (a)

Instruction:
Here is an article:
As our identities become more entrenched on the web, a slew of apps want us to return to an earlier era of anonymity on the internet. But can apps such as Secret - which has just launched on Android - really keep our identities, well, secret? By Kim GittlesonBBC technology reporter, New York Think back to an AOL chatroom. Wait for the modem to sing its song, click the connect button, find a room - and inevitably, the first question you're asked as soon as you log in is "a/s/l?" - age/sex/location. In other words: "Who are you?" For many people, this was the defining feature of the internet: anonymity. A place where screen names and loose identification protocols made the web, by default, an opaque place. Today, our digital identities adhere ever more closely to our real lives, with Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram allowing real-time and often permanent imprints of our existence. While alleviating one concern - identification - they have created another: is there any way to be open on the internet anymore, without fear of reprisal? That is why a whole host of firms are arguing that it is time to return to, or at least make space for, anonymity. The best version "You look at all of these services like Facebook and Instagram, and they're all about let me show you the best version of me," argues Whisper co-founder Michael Heyward. "It's essentially this highlight reel - Whisper is about showing people the behind the scenes stuff that we're not always comfortable posting on Facebook." Whisper allows users to download an app and then post anonymous statements - everything from "do you like this outfit?" to "I'm worried I suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder". Users can then like statements they identify with or think are funny. Mr Heyward likens it to the Catholic concept of a confession - but a confession that also operates as a business. Whisper has raised over $60m (£36m) since being founded two years ago. "I think we're really well positioned to own anonymity," he says. Big business But Mr Heyward isn't the only one to realise that both the intrusion of social networks into our "real lives" and the Edward Snowden US government spying revelations have led to an increased desire for anonymity on the web. And, of course, capitalising on that desire for anonymity could be big business. Secret, founded in October and launched in January by two former Google employees, Chrys Bader-Wechseler and David Byttow, has already raised $11.5m. Unlike Whisper, it accesses your phone's contacts and only shows you Secrets from friends or friends of friends. It was a hit with iPhone users in Silicon Valley, where they posted juicy titbits, including news of which tech start-ups had been bought for millions and, most notably, broke news of layoffs at Nike. And the app has just been made available in all countries both on iOS and Android. Mr Bader-Wecheseler says that the duo didn't design the app with the concept of whistle-blowing in mind. But now "we constantly ask ourselves is whistle-blowing important, and we think so". Marketing gimmick But thinking whistle-blowing is important and promising anonymity are two very different things. "The problem with apps on mobile phones is that, well, it's a mobile phone," says Runi Sandvik, a technologist at the Center for Democracy and Technology. "It's tied to you in some way or another and this identifier is often passed to the makers of these applications. So even if these apps on their website are promising you anonymity, if asked or required they will hand over your information to law enforcement." Ms Sandvik says that promises of anonymity are thus essentially a "marketing gimmick" because "you don't want to advertise an app that promises semi-anonymity". And it is not just users who could find themselves in hot water. University of Maryland law professor James Grimmelman notes that Snapchat, the self-deleting photo messaging app, recently got into hot water with US authorities over promises that images could not be stored. "If users can be identified you cannot promise anonymity," he says. He adds that the Nike leak also could cause legal issues, including leaking trade secrets and raising questions about insider trading. Getting swept along That's why perhaps "it's more about pseudo-nymity - the ability to have a real identity but being able to turn it off when you want to," says Dil-Domine Leonares, founder of an app called Breakr, which allows users anonymously join chatrooms based on their location. That is a sentiment echoed, in some part, by Secret's founders, who insist the app isn't all about whistle-blowing. "Facebook trained us to curate our identity - I think Secret can train us in empathy," says Mr Bader-Wechseler. But that assumes - or presumes - that what people have to share is not mean, or slanderous, or just simply banal. One recent Secret read: "Just spent 45 min trying to teach my cat a trick. He didn't get it. We'll work on it tomorrow." Not exactly the stuff that moves mountains. But then again, scroll down a bit and I found "Twitch.tv is rumored to have been acquired for $1b. Any big paydays for non-execs?" - something a bit more up my alley as a technology journalist. Scroll down once more, this time on Whisper, and I found out that the ex-wife of a prominent technology executive was now dating. And therein lies the question: are these apps about sharing feelings that can't be expressed publicly, leaking corporate secrets, or, simply trading in something that pre-dates the iPhone: gossip? There's also the less philosophical, more practical issue, the word that is almost never spoken in the bubbly world of Silicon Valley: profits. "We think about it every now and then but we haven't invested resources in solving this problem," says Mr Bader-Wechseler.

Here is a summary requirement:
Summarize the information of different apps mentioned in this article.

Please summarize the above article based on the given requirement:

The article discusses various apps that aim to provide anonymity on the internet. Whisper, co-founded by Michael Heyward, allows users to post anonymous statements and has raised over $60m since its founding two years ago. Secret, founded by two former Google employees, Chrys Bader-Wechseler and David Byttow, has raised $11.5m and accesses users' phone contacts to show Secrets from friends or friends of friends. Breakr, founded by Dil-Domine Leonares, allows users to anonymously join chatrooms based on their location.

The article discusses different apps that allow for anonymity on the internet. These apps include Secret, Whisper, and Breakr. The article discusses the pros and cons of these apps, as well as the potential legal issues that could arise from using them.


You are a helpful assistant in evaluating the quality of the outputs for a given instruction. Your goal is to select the best output for the given instruction.

Select the Output (a) or Output (b) that is better for the given instruction. The two outputs are generated by two different AI chatbots respectively.

Here are some rules of the evaluation:
(1) You should prioritize evaluating whether the output honestly/precisely/closely executes the instruction, then consider its helpfulness, accuracy, level of detail, harmlessness, etc.
(2) Outputs should NOT contain more/less than what the instruction asks for, as such outputs do NOT precisely execute the instruction.
(3) You should avoid any potential bias and your judgment should be as objective as possible. For example, the order in which the outputs were presented should NOT affect your judgment, as Output (a) and Output (b) are **equally likely** to be the better.

Do NOT provide any explanation for your choice.
Do NOT say both / neither are good.
You should answer using ONLY "Output (a)" or "Output (b)". Do NOT output any other words.

# Instruction:
Here is an article:
As our identities become more entrenched on the web, a slew of apps want us to return to an earlier era of anonymity on the internet. But can apps such as Secret - which has just launched on Android - really keep our identities, well, secret? By Kim GittlesonBBC technology reporter, New York Think back to an AOL chatroom. Wait for the modem to sing its song, click the connect button, find a room - and inevitably, the first question you're asked as soon as you log in is "a/s/l?" - age/sex/location. In other words: "Who are you?" For many people, this was the defining feature of the internet: anonymity. A place where screen names and loose identification protocols made the web, by default, an opaque place. Today, our digital identities adhere ever more closely to our real lives, with Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram allowing real-time and often permanent imprints of our existence. While alleviating one concern - identification - they have created another: is there any way to be open on the internet anymore, without fear of reprisal? That is why a whole host of firms are arguing that it is time to return to, or at least make space for, anonymity. The best version "You look at all of these services like Facebook and Instagram, and they're all about let me show you the best version of me," argues Whisper co-founder Michael Heyward. "It's essentially this highlight reel - Whisper is about showing people the behind the scenes stuff that we're not always comfortable posting on Facebook." Whisper allows users to download an app and then post anonymous statements - everything from "do you like this outfit?" to "I'm worried I suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder". Users can then like statements they identify with or think are funny. Mr Heyward likens it to the Catholic concept of a confession - but a confession that also operates as a business. Whisper has raised over $60m (£36m) since being founded two years ago. "I think we're really well positioned to own anonymity," he says. Big business But Mr Heyward isn't the only one to realise that both the intrusion of social networks into our "real lives" and the Edward Snowden US government spying revelations have led to an increased desire for anonymity on the web. And, of course, capitalising on that desire for anonymity could be big business. Secret, founded in October and launched in January by two former Google employees, Chrys Bader-Wechseler and David Byttow, has already raised $11.5m. Unlike Whisper, it accesses your phone's contacts and only shows you Secrets from friends or friends of friends. It was a hit with iPhone users in Silicon Valley, where they posted juicy titbits, including news of which tech start-ups had been bought for millions and, most notably, broke news of layoffs at Nike. And the app has just been made available in all countries both on iOS and Android. Mr Bader-Wecheseler says that the duo didn't design the app with the concept of whistle-blowing in mind. But now "we constantly ask ourselves is whistle-blowing important, and we think so". Marketing gimmick But thinking whistle-blowing is important and promising anonymity are two very different things. "The problem with apps on mobile phones is that, well, it's a mobile phone," says Runi Sandvik, a technologist at the Center for Democracy and Technology. "It's tied to you in some way or another and this identifier is often passed to the makers of these applications. So even if these apps on their website are promising you anonymity, if asked or required they will hand over your information to law enforcement." Ms Sandvik says that promises of anonymity are thus essentially a "marketing gimmick" because "you don't want to advertise an app that promises semi-anonymity". And it is not just users who could find themselves in hot water. University of Maryland law professor James Grimmelman notes that Snapchat, the self-deleting photo messaging app, recently got into hot water with US authorities over promises that images could not be stored. "If users can be identified you cannot promise anonymity," he says. He adds that the Nike leak also could cause legal issues, including leaking trade secrets and raising questions about insider trading. Getting swept along That's why perhaps "it's more about pseudo-nymity - the ability to have a real identity but being able to turn it off when you want to," says Dil-Domine Leonares, founder of an app called Breakr, which allows users anonymously join chatrooms based on their location. That is a sentiment echoed, in some part, by Secret's founders, who insist the app isn't all about whistle-blowing. "Facebook trained us to curate our identity - I think Secret can train us in empathy," says Mr Bader-Wechseler. But that assumes - or presumes - that what people have to share is not mean, or slanderous, or just simply banal. One recent Secret read: "Just spent 45 min trying to teach my cat a trick. He didn't get it. We'll work on it tomorrow." Not exactly the stuff that moves mountains. But then again, scroll down a bit and I found "Twitch.tv is rumored to have been acquired for $1b. Any big paydays for non-execs?" - something a bit more up my alley as a technology journalist. Scroll down once more, this time on Whisper, and I found out that the ex-wife of a prominent technology executive was now dating. And therein lies the question: are these apps about sharing feelings that can't be expressed publicly, leaking corporate secrets, or, simply trading in something that pre-dates the iPhone: gossip? There's also the less philosophical, more practical issue, the word that is almost never spoken in the bubbly world of Silicon Valley: profits. "We think about it every now and then but we haven't invested resources in solving this problem," says Mr Bader-Wechseler.

Here is a summary requirement:
Summarize the information of different apps mentioned in this article.

Please summarize the above article based on the given requirement:

# Output (a):
The article discusses various apps that aim to provide anonymity on the internet. Whisper, co-founded by Michael Heyward, allows users to post anonymous statements and has raised over $60m since its founding two years ago. Secret, founded by two former Google employees, Chrys Bader-Wechseler and David Byttow, has raised $11.5m and accesses users' phone contacts to show Secrets from friends or friends of friends. Snapchat, the self-deleting photo messaging app, recently got into hot water with US authorities over promises that images could not be stored. Breakr, founded by Dil-Domine Leonares, allows users to anonymously join chatrooms based on their location.

# Output (b):
The article discusses different apps that allow for anonymity on the internet. These apps include Secret, Whisper, and Breakr. The article discusses the pros and cons of these apps, as well as the potential legal issues that could arise from using them.

# Which is better, Output (a) or Output (b)? Your response should be either "Output (a)" or "Output (b)":

Output (a)

Instruction:
Here is an article:
As our identities become more entrenched on the web, a slew of apps want us to return to an earlier era of anonymity on the internet. But can apps such as Secret - which has just launched on Android - really keep our identities, well, secret? By Kim GittlesonBBC technology reporter, New York Think back to an AOL chatroom. Wait for the modem to sing its song, click the connect button, find a room - and inevitably, the first question you're asked as soon as you log in is "a/s/l?" - age/sex/location. In other words: "Who are you?" For many people, this was the defining feature of the internet: anonymity. A place where screen names and loose identification protocols made the web, by default, an opaque place. Today, our digital identities adhere ever more closely to our real lives, with Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram allowing real-time and often permanent imprints of our existence. While alleviating one concern - identification - they have created another: is there any way to be open on the internet anymore, without fear of reprisal? That is why a whole host of firms are arguing that it is time to return to, or at least make space for, anonymity. The best version "You look at all of these services like Facebook and Instagram, and they're all about let me show you the best version of me," argues Whisper co-founder Michael Heyward. "It's essentially this highlight reel - Whisper is about showing people the behind the scenes stuff that we're not always comfortable posting on Facebook." Whisper allows users to download an app and then post anonymous statements - everything from "do you like this outfit?" to "I'm worried I suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder". Users can then like statements they identify with or think are funny. Mr Heyward likens it to the Catholic concept of a confession - but a confession that also operates as a business. Whisper has raised over $60m (£36m) since being founded two years ago. "I think we're really well positioned to own anonymity," he says. Big business But Mr Heyward isn't the only one to realise that both the intrusion of social networks into our "real lives" and the Edward Snowden US government spying revelations have led to an increased desire for anonymity on the web. And, of course, capitalising on that desire for anonymity could be big business. Secret, founded in October and launched in January by two former Google employees, Chrys Bader-Wechseler and David Byttow, has already raised $11.5m. Unlike Whisper, it accesses your phone's contacts and only shows you Secrets from friends or friends of friends. It was a hit with iPhone users in Silicon Valley, where they posted juicy titbits, including news of which tech start-ups had been bought for millions and, most notably, broke news of layoffs at Nike. And the app has just been made available in all countries both on iOS and Android. Mr Bader-Wecheseler says that the duo didn't design the app with the concept of whistle-blowing in mind. But now "we constantly ask ourselves is whistle-blowing important, and we think so". Marketing gimmick But thinking whistle-blowing is important and promising anonymity are two very different things. "The problem with apps on mobile phones is that, well, it's a mobile phone," says Runi Sandvik, a technologist at the Center for Democracy and Technology. "It's tied to you in some way or another and this identifier is often passed to the makers of these applications. So even if these apps on their website are promising you anonymity, if asked or required they will hand over your information to law enforcement." Ms Sandvik says that promises of anonymity are thus essentially a "marketing gimmick" because "you don't want to advertise an app that promises semi-anonymity". And it is not just users who could find themselves in hot water. University of Maryland law professor James Grimmelman notes that Snapchat, the self-deleting photo messaging app, recently got into hot water with US authorities over promises that images could not be stored. "If users can be identified you cannot promise anonymity," he says. He adds that the Nike leak also could cause legal issues, including leaking trade secrets and raising questions about insider trading. Getting swept along That's why perhaps "it's more about pseudo-nymity - the ability to have a real identity but being able to turn it off when you want to," says Dil-Domine Leonares, founder of an app called Breakr, which allows users anonymously join chatrooms based on their location. That is a sentiment echoed, in some part, by Secret's founders, who insist the app isn't all about whistle-blowing. "Facebook trained us to curate our identity - I think Secret can train us in empathy," says Mr Bader-Wechseler. But that assumes - or presumes - that what people have to share is not mean, or slanderous, or just simply banal. One recent Secret read: "Just spent 45 min trying to teach my cat a trick. He didn't get it. We'll work on it tomorrow." Not exactly the stuff that moves mountains. But then again, scroll down a bit and I found "Twitch.tv is rumored to have been acquired for $1b. Any big paydays for non-execs?" - something a bit more up my alley as a technology journalist. Scroll down once more, this time on Whisper, and I found out that the ex-wife of a prominent technology executive was now dating. And therein lies the question: are these apps about sharing feelings that can't be expressed publicly, leaking corporate secrets, or, simply trading in something that pre-dates the iPhone: gossip? There's also the less philosophical, more practical issue, the word that is almost never spoken in the bubbly world of Silicon Valley: profits. "We think about it every now and then but we haven't invested resources in solving this problem," says Mr Bader-Wechseler.

Here is a summary requirement:
Summarize the information of different apps mentioned in this article.

Please summarize the above article based on the given requirement:

The article discusses various apps that aim to provide anonymity on the internet. Whisper, co-founded by Michael Heyward, allows users to post anonymous statements and has raised over $60m since its founding two years ago. Secret, founded by two former Google employees, Chrys Bader-Wechseler and David Byttow, has raised $11.5m and accesses users' phone contacts to show Secrets from friends or friends of friends. Snapchat, the self-deleting photo messaging app, recently got into hot water with US authorities over promises that images could not be stored. Breakr, founded by Dil-Domine Leonares, allows users to anonymously join chatrooms based on their location.

The article discusses different apps that allow for anonymity on the internet. These apps include Secret, Whisper, and Breakr. The article discusses the pros and cons of these apps, as well as the potential legal issues that could arise from using them.


You are a helpful assistant in evaluating the quality of the outputs for a given instruction. Your goal is to select the best output for the given instruction.

Select the Output (a) or Output (b) that is better for the given instruction. The two outputs are generated by two different AI chatbots respectively.

Here are some rules of the evaluation:
(1) You should prioritize evaluating whether the output honestly/precisely/closely executes the instruction, then consider its helpfulness, accuracy, level of detail, harmlessness, etc.
(2) Outputs should NOT contain more/less than what the instruction asks for, as such outputs do NOT precisely execute the instruction.
(3) You should avoid any potential bias and your judgment should be as objective as possible. For example, the order in which the outputs were presented should NOT affect your judgment, as Output (a) and Output (b) are **equally likely** to be the better.

Do NOT provide any explanation for your choice.
Do NOT say both / neither are good.
You should answer using ONLY "Output (a)" or "Output (b)". Do NOT output any other words.

# Instruction:
Here is an article:
As our identities become more entrenched on the web, a slew of apps want us to return to an earlier era of anonymity on the internet. But can apps such as Secret - which has just launched on Android - really keep our identities, well, secret? By Kim GittlesonBBC technology reporter, New York Think back to an AOL chatroom. Wait for the modem to sing its song, click the connect button, find a room - and inevitably, the first question you're asked as soon as you log in is "a/s/l?" - age/sex/location. In other words: "Who are you?" For many people, this was the defining feature of the internet: anonymity. A place where screen names and loose identification protocols made the web, by default, an opaque place. Today, our digital identities adhere ever more closely to our real lives, with Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram allowing real-time and often permanent imprints of our existence. While alleviating one concern - identification - they have created another: is there any way to be open on the internet anymore, without fear of reprisal? That is why a whole host of firms are arguing that it is time to return to, or at least make space for, anonymity. The best version "You look at all of these services like Facebook and Instagram, and they're all about let me show you the best version of me," argues Whisper co-founder Michael Heyward. "It's essentially this highlight reel - Whisper is about showing people the behind the scenes stuff that we're not always comfortable posting on Facebook." Whisper allows users to download an app and then post anonymous statements - everything from "do you like this outfit?" to "I'm worried I suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder". Users can then like statements they identify with or think are funny. Mr Heyward likens it to the Catholic concept of a confession - but a confession that also operates as a business. Whisper has raised over $60m (£36m) since being founded two years ago. "I think we're really well positioned to own anonymity," he says. Big business But Mr Heyward isn't the only one to realise that both the intrusion of social networks into our "real lives" and the Edward Snowden US government spying revelations have led to an increased desire for anonymity on the web. And, of course, capitalising on that desire for anonymity could be big business. Secret, founded in October and launched in January by two former Google employees, Chrys Bader-Wechseler and David Byttow, has already raised $11.5m. Unlike Whisper, it accesses your phone's contacts and only shows you Secrets from friends or friends of friends. It was a hit with iPhone users in Silicon Valley, where they posted juicy titbits, including news of which tech start-ups had been bought for millions and, most notably, broke news of layoffs at Nike. And the app has just been made available in all countries both on iOS and Android. Mr Bader-Wecheseler says that the duo didn't design the app with the concept of whistle-blowing in mind. But now "we constantly ask ourselves is whistle-blowing important, and we think so". Marketing gimmick But thinking whistle-blowing is important and promising anonymity are two very different things. "The problem with apps on mobile phones is that, well, it's a mobile phone," says Runi Sandvik, a technologist at the Center for Democracy and Technology. "It's tied to you in some way or another and this identifier is often passed to the makers of these applications. So even if these apps on their website are promising you anonymity, if asked or required they will hand over your information to law enforcement." Ms Sandvik says that promises of anonymity are thus essentially a "marketing gimmick" because "you don't want to advertise an app that promises semi-anonymity". And it is not just users who could find themselves in hot water. University of Maryland law professor James Grimmelman notes that Snapchat, the self-deleting photo messaging app, recently got into hot water with US authorities over promises that images could not be stored. "If users can be identified you cannot promise anonymity," he says. He adds that the Nike leak also could cause legal issues, including leaking trade secrets and raising questions about insider trading. Getting swept along That's why perhaps "it's more about pseudo-nymity - the ability to have a real identity but being able to turn it off when you want to," says Dil-Domine Leonares, founder of an app called Breakr, which allows users anonymously join chatrooms based on their location. That is a sentiment echoed, in some part, by Secret's founders, who insist the app isn't all about whistle-blowing. "Facebook trained us to curate our identity - I think Secret can train us in empathy," says Mr Bader-Wechseler. But that assumes - or presumes - that what people have to share is not mean, or slanderous, or just simply banal. One recent Secret read: "Just spent 45 min trying to teach my cat a trick. He didn't get it. We'll work on it tomorrow." Not exactly the stuff that moves mountains. But then again, scroll down a bit and I found "Twitch.tv is rumored to have been acquired for $1b. Any big paydays for non-execs?" - something a bit more up my alley as a technology journalist. Scroll down once more, this time on Whisper, and I found out that the ex-wife of a prominent technology executive was now dating. And therein lies the question: are these apps about sharing feelings that can't be expressed publicly, leaking corporate secrets, or, simply trading in something that pre-dates the iPhone: gossip? There's also the less philosophical, more practical issue, the word that is almost never spoken in the bubbly world of Silicon Valley: profits. "We think about it every now and then but we haven't invested resources in solving this problem," says Mr Bader-Wechseler.

Here is a summary requirement:
Summarize the information of different apps mentioned in this article.

Please summarize the above article based on the given requirement:

# Output (a):
The article discusses the increasing desire for anonymity on the internet due to the intrusion of social networks into our real lives and the Edward Snowden US government spying revelations. Whisper and Secret are two apps that allow users to post anonymous statements. Whisper allows users to post anonymous statements and has raised over $60m since being founded two years ago. Secret accesses your phone's contacts and only shows you Secrets from friends or friends of friends. It was a hit with iPhone users in Silicon Valley, where they posted juicy titbits, including news of which tech start-ups had been bought for millions and broke news of layoffs at Nike. However, promises of anonymity are essentially a marketing gimmick because if asked or required, the makers of these applications will hand over your information to law enforcement.

# Output (b):
This article discusses the trend of apps that are allowing users to return to an era of anonymity on the internet. It mentions Whisper, which allows users to post anonymous statements, and Secret, which accesses users' phone contacts and only shows them secrets from friends or friends of friends. It also mentions Breakr, which allows users to anonymously join chatrooms based on their location. These apps have raised millions of dollars in funding and have been met with both enthusiasm and skepticism. While they promise anonymity, there is still the potential for users to be identified and for legal issues to arise.

# Which is better, Output (a) or Output (b)? Your response should be either "Output (a)" or "Output (b)":

Output (b)

Instruction:
Here is an article:
As our identities become more entrenched on the web, a slew of apps want us to return to an earlier era of anonymity on the internet. But can apps such as Secret - which has just launched on Android - really keep our identities, well, secret? By Kim GittlesonBBC technology reporter, New York Think back to an AOL chatroom. Wait for the modem to sing its song, click the connect button, find a room - and inevitably, the first question you're asked as soon as you log in is "a/s/l?" - age/sex/location. In other words: "Who are you?" For many people, this was the defining feature of the internet: anonymity. A place where screen names and loose identification protocols made the web, by default, an opaque place. Today, our digital identities adhere ever more closely to our real lives, with Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram allowing real-time and often permanent imprints of our existence. While alleviating one concern - identification - they have created another: is there any way to be open on the internet anymore, without fear of reprisal? That is why a whole host of firms are arguing that it is time to return to, or at least make space for, anonymity. The best version "You look at all of these services like Facebook and Instagram, and they're all about let me show you the best version of me," argues Whisper co-founder Michael Heyward. "It's essentially this highlight reel - Whisper is about showing people the behind the scenes stuff that we're not always comfortable posting on Facebook." Whisper allows users to download an app and then post anonymous statements - everything from "do you like this outfit?" to "I'm worried I suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder". Users can then like statements they identify with or think are funny. Mr Heyward likens it to the Catholic concept of a confession - but a confession that also operates as a business. Whisper has raised over $60m (£36m) since being founded two years ago. "I think we're really well positioned to own anonymity," he says. Big business But Mr Heyward isn't the only one to realise that both the intrusion of social networks into our "real lives" and the Edward Snowden US government spying revelations have led to an increased desire for anonymity on the web. And, of course, capitalising on that desire for anonymity could be big business. Secret, founded in October and launched in January by two former Google employees, Chrys Bader-Wechseler and David Byttow, has already raised $11.5m. Unlike Whisper, it accesses your phone's contacts and only shows you Secrets from friends or friends of friends. It was a hit with iPhone users in Silicon Valley, where they posted juicy titbits, including news of which tech start-ups had been bought for millions and, most notably, broke news of layoffs at Nike. And the app has just been made available in all countries both on iOS and Android. Mr Bader-Wecheseler says that the duo didn't design the app with the concept of whistle-blowing in mind. But now "we constantly ask ourselves is whistle-blowing important, and we think so". Marketing gimmick But thinking whistle-blowing is important and promising anonymity are two very different things. "The problem with apps on mobile phones is that, well, it's a mobile phone," says Runi Sandvik, a technologist at the Center for Democracy and Technology. "It's tied to you in some way or another and this identifier is often passed to the makers of these applications. So even if these apps on their website are promising you anonymity, if asked or required they will hand over your information to law enforcement." Ms Sandvik says that promises of anonymity are thus essentially a "marketing gimmick" because "you don't want to advertise an app that promises semi-anonymity". And it is not just users who could find themselves in hot water. University of Maryland law professor James Grimmelman notes that Snapchat, the self-deleting photo messaging app, recently got into hot water with US authorities over promises that images could not be stored. "If users can be identified you cannot promise anonymity," he says. He adds that the Nike leak also could cause legal issues, including leaking trade secrets and raising questions about insider trading. Getting swept along That's why perhaps "it's more about pseudo-nymity - the ability to have a real identity but being able to turn it off when you want to," says Dil-Domine Leonares, founder of an app called Breakr, which allows users anonymously join chatrooms based on their location. That is a sentiment echoed, in some part, by Secret's founders, who insist the app isn't all about whistle-blowing. "Facebook trained us to curate our identity - I think Secret can train us in empathy," says Mr Bader-Wechseler. But that assumes - or presumes - that what people have to share is not mean, or slanderous, or just simply banal. One recent Secret read: "Just spent 45 min trying to teach my cat a trick. He didn't get it. We'll work on it tomorrow." Not exactly the stuff that moves mountains. But then again, scroll down a bit and I found "Twitch.tv is rumored to have been acquired for $1b. Any big paydays for non-execs?" - something a bit more up my alley as a technology journalist. Scroll down once more, this time on Whisper, and I found out that the ex-wife of a prominent technology executive was now dating. And therein lies the question: are these apps about sharing feelings that can't be expressed publicly, leaking corporate secrets, or, simply trading in something that pre-dates the iPhone: gossip? There's also the less philosophical, more practical issue, the word that is almost never spoken in the bubbly world of Silicon Valley: profits. "We think about it every now and then but we haven't invested resources in solving this problem," says Mr Bader-Wechseler.

Here is a summary requirement:
Summarize the information of different apps mentioned in this article.

Please summarize the above article based on the given requirement:

The article discusses the increasing desire for anonymity on the internet due to the intrusion of social networks into our real lives and the Edward Snowden US government spying revelations. Whisper and Secret are two apps that allow users to post anonymous statements. Whisper allows users to post anonymous statements and has raised over $60m since being founded two years ago. Secret accesses your phone's contacts and only shows you Secrets from friends or friends of friends. It was a hit with iPhone users in Silicon Valley, where they posted juicy titbits, including news of which tech start-ups had been bought for millions and broke news of layoffs at Nike. However, promises of anonymity are essentially a marketing gimmick because if asked or required, the makers of these applications will hand over your information to law enforcement.

This article discusses the trend of apps that are allowing users to return to an era of anonymity on the internet. It mentions Whisper, which allows users to post anonymous statements, and Secret, which accesses users' phone contacts and only shows them secrets from friends or friends of friends. It also mentions Breakr, which allows users to anonymously join chatrooms based on their location. These apps have raised millions of dollars in funding and have been met with both enthusiasm and skepticism. While they promise anonymity, there is still the potential for users to be identified and for legal issues to arise.