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 founders of Secret's perspective on the purpose of their app.

Please summarize the above article based on the given requirement:

# Output (a):
The founders of Secret, Chrys Bader-Wechseler and David Byttow, believe that their app provides a platform for users to share information and feelings anonymously, without the fear of being identified. They did not initially design the app with whistle-blowing in mind, but they now consider it an important aspect. Bader-Wechseler also suggests that Secret can help train users in empathy, as it allows them to share experiences and emotions that they might not feel comfortable sharing on other social media platforms.

# Output (b):
The founders of Secret argue that their app is not just about whistle-blowing, but also about empathy. They believe that Facebook has trained users to curate their identity, and that Secret can help train us in empathy. However, some critics argue that the app is simply a marketing gimmick and that promises of anonymity are essentially meaningless.

# 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 founders of Secret's perspective on the purpose of their app.

Please summarize the above article based on the given requirement:

The founders of Secret, Chrys Bader-Wechseler and David Byttow, believe that their app provides a platform for users to share information and feelings anonymously, without the fear of being identified. They did not initially design the app with whistle-blowing in mind, but they now consider it an important aspect. Bader-Wechseler also suggests that Secret can help train users in empathy, as it allows them to share experiences and emotions that they might not feel comfortable sharing on other social media platforms.

The founders of Secret argue that their app is not just about whistle-blowing, but also about empathy. They believe that Facebook has trained users to curate their identity, and that Secret can help train us in empathy. However, some critics argue that the app is simply a marketing gimmick and that promises of anonymity are essentially meaningless.


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 founders of Secret's perspective on the purpose of their app.

Please summarize the above article based on the given requirement:

# Output (a):
The founders of Secret, Chrys Bader-Wechseler and David Byttow, believe that their app provides a platform for users to share information and feelings anonymously, without the fear of being identified. They did not initially design the app with whistle-blowing in mind, but they now consider it an important aspect. Bader-Wechseler also suggests that Secret can help train users in empathy, as it allows them to share experiences and emotions that they might not feel comfortable sharing on other social media platforms.

# Output (b):
The founders of Secret argue that their app is not just about whistle-blowing, but also about empathy. They believe that Facebook has trained users to curate their identity, and that Secret can help train us in empathy. However, some critics argue that the app is simply a marketing gimmick and that promises of anonymity are essentially meaningless.

# 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 founders of Secret's perspective on the purpose of their app.

Please summarize the above article based on the given requirement:

The founders of Secret, Chrys Bader-Wechseler and David Byttow, believe that their app provides a platform for users to share information and feelings anonymously, without the fear of being identified. They did not initially design the app with whistle-blowing in mind, but they now consider it an important aspect. Bader-Wechseler also suggests that Secret can help train users in empathy, as it allows them to share experiences and emotions that they might not feel comfortable sharing on other social media platforms.

The founders of Secret argue that their app is not just about whistle-blowing, but also about empathy. They believe that Facebook has trained users to curate their identity, and that Secret can help train us in empathy. However, some critics argue that the app is simply a marketing gimmick and that promises of anonymity are essentially meaningless.


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 founders of Secret's perspective on the purpose of their app.

Please summarize the above article based on the given requirement:

# Output (a):
The founders of Secret, an app that allows users to post anonymous statements, believe that their app is not just about whistle-blowing, but also about promoting empathy and allowing users to share feelings that they may not be comfortable posting on social media platforms like Facebook and Instagram. They argue that 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. However, critics argue that promises of anonymity are essentially a marketing gimmick, as mobile phones are tied to users in some way or another, and identifiers are often passed to the makers of these applications.

# Output (b):
The founders of Secret, Chrys Bader-Wechseler and David Byttow, argue that their app is not just about whistle-blowing, but also about providing a space for people to express themselves without fear of reprisal. They believe that the app can train people in empathy, allowing them to share feelings that can't be expressed publicly. They also note that while they think about profits, they have not yet invested resources in solving this problem.

# 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 founders of Secret's perspective on the purpose of their app.

Please summarize the above article based on the given requirement:

The founders of Secret, an app that allows users to post anonymous statements, believe that their app is not just about whistle-blowing, but also about promoting empathy and allowing users to share feelings that they may not be comfortable posting on social media platforms like Facebook and Instagram. They argue that 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. However, critics argue that promises of anonymity are essentially a marketing gimmick, as mobile phones are tied to users in some way or another, and identifiers are often passed to the makers of these applications.

The founders of Secret, Chrys Bader-Wechseler and David Byttow, argue that their app is not just about whistle-blowing, but also about providing a space for people to express themselves without fear of reprisal. They believe that the app can train people in empathy, allowing them to share feelings that can't be expressed publicly. They also note that while they think about profits, they have not yet invested resources in solving this problem.


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 founders of Secret's perspective on the purpose of their app.

Please summarize the above article based on the given requirement:

# Output (a):
The founders of Secret, an app that allows users to post anonymous statements, believe that their app is not just about whistle-blowing, but also about promoting empathy and allowing users to share feelings that they may not be comfortable posting on social media platforms like Facebook and Instagram. They argue that 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. However, critics argue that promises of anonymity are essentially a marketing gimmick, as mobile phones are tied to users in some way or another, and identifiers are often passed to the makers of these applications.

# Output (b):
The founders of Secret, Chrys Bader-Wechseler and David Byttow, believe that their app provides a platform for users to share information and feelings anonymously, without the fear of being identified. They did not initially design the app with whistle-blowing in mind, but they now consider it an important aspect. Bader-Wechseler also suggests that Secret can help train users in empathy, as it allows them to share experiences and emotions that they might not feel comfortable sharing on other social media platforms.

# 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 founders of Secret's perspective on the purpose of their app.

Please summarize the above article based on the given requirement:

The founders of Secret, an app that allows users to post anonymous statements, believe that their app is not just about whistle-blowing, but also about promoting empathy and allowing users to share feelings that they may not be comfortable posting on social media platforms like Facebook and Instagram. They argue that 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. However, critics argue that promises of anonymity are essentially a marketing gimmick, as mobile phones are tied to users in some way or another, and identifiers are often passed to the makers of these applications.

The founders of Secret, Chrys Bader-Wechseler and David Byttow, believe that their app provides a platform for users to share information and feelings anonymously, without the fear of being identified. They did not initially design the app with whistle-blowing in mind, but they now consider it an important aspect. Bader-Wechseler also suggests that Secret can help train users in empathy, as it allows them to share experiences and emotions that they might not feel comfortable sharing on other social media platforms.


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 founders of Secret's perspective on the purpose of their app.

Please summarize the above article based on the given requirement:

# Output (a):
The founders of Secret, an app that allows users to post anonymous statements, believe that their app is not just about whistle-blowing, but also about promoting empathy and allowing users to share feelings that they may not be comfortable posting on social media platforms like Facebook and Instagram. They argue that 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. However, critics argue that promises of anonymity are essentially a marketing gimmick, as mobile phones are tied to users in some way or another, and identifiers are often passed to the makers of these applications.

# Output (b):
The founders of Secret, Chrys Bader-Wechseler and David Byttow, believe that their app provides a platform for users to share information and feelings anonymously, without the fear of being identified. They did not initially design the app with whistle-blowing in mind, but they now consider it an important aspect. Bader-Wechseler also suggests that Secret can help train users in empathy, as it allows them to share experiences and emotions that they might not feel comfortable sharing on other social media platforms.

# 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 founders of Secret's perspective on the purpose of their app.

Please summarize the above article based on the given requirement:

The founders of Secret, an app that allows users to post anonymous statements, believe that their app is not just about whistle-blowing, but also about promoting empathy and allowing users to share feelings that they may not be comfortable posting on social media platforms like Facebook and Instagram. They argue that 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. However, critics argue that promises of anonymity are essentially a marketing gimmick, as mobile phones are tied to users in some way or another, and identifiers are often passed to the makers of these applications.

The founders of Secret, Chrys Bader-Wechseler and David Byttow, believe that their app provides a platform for users to share information and feelings anonymously, without the fear of being identified. They did not initially design the app with whistle-blowing in mind, but they now consider it an important aspect. Bader-Wechseler also suggests that Secret can help train users in empathy, as it allows them to share experiences and emotions that they might not feel comfortable sharing on other social media platforms.


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 pressure to tackle London's housing crisis grows, a number of controversial views are being offered on how the problem should be addressed. By Andy DangerfieldBBC News, London 'House prices soar'. 'Fears of a housing bubble'. 'First-time buyers priced-out'. These are familiar headlines to Londoners. Each has appeared in the press in the past month, but similar headlines have become all-too recognisable over the past couple of years. London's house prices are rising by more than 20% annually, according to latest Office for National Statistics figures. The city needs 63,000 new homes each year, but only a third of these are being built while a "lost generation is being ruled out of ownership" due to "soaring rents, poor conditions and rising homelessness", it has been claimed. But what alternative solutions are being put forward to tackle the issue? Move old people to smaller flats One in four children in London live in overcrowded homes, according to English Housing Survey figures. At the same time, thousands of single elderly people live alone in multi-bedroomed suburban properties. In 2012, Local Government Association president Lord Richard Best proposed a radical solution: Building 100,000 homes designed especially for the needs of an ageing population. By downsizing, older people could free up accommodation for families, helping a whole generation of first-time buyers who are priced out of the market. "We free up lots of family housing, and we look after ourselves when we're older because, sooner or later, those three-bedroom, four-bedroom family houses are going to be too much for us," Lord Best said. But how easy would it be to convince elderly people to move out of the home they may have lived in for most of their lives? Peter Girling, chairman of Girlings Retirement Rentals, suggested the government should offer tax breaks to elderly people who give up their property. "You can't force people to move but you could help them along the way," he said. Adopt a European attitude Perhaps we should just face the fact the golden age of home ownership might be over, and learn to rent like the Germans? According to the 2011 German census, only 16% of Berliners owned their own place, compared with 50% in London. "People in Germany or Paris live in rented accommodation for their entire lives and there's no stigma attached," said Patricia Brown, who chairs the London Festival of Architecture. She said following the example of Germany and enabling people to rent better properties for longer could be a solution. For instance, in Germany tenants can only be evicted with a minimum of three months' notice. London's mayor Boris Johnson launched a voluntary accreditation scheme aimed at improving rental standards in May. In order to be approved for the London Rental Standard, landlords are required to meet a set of commitments including "transparent fees" and "improved response times for repairs". But Labour's London Assembly housing spokesman Tom Copley thinks the scheme does not go far enough. He suggested three-year tenancies "as standard with caps on annual rent increases" would make "renting in London more stable". Build all over the green belt There is still plenty of green belt land within the M25 and Sam Bowman, a research director at pro free market think-tank The Adam Smith Institute, thinks maybe the time has come to build on it. As of 2010, London had 484,173 hectares of green belt - 3.7% of England's total land area, according to the Campaign to Protect Rural England. Mr Bowman said this would mean "bigger homes and cheaper homes for everybody in order to give people that space to live". But Ann Goddard, of Elstree & Borehamwood Greenbelt Society, said: "Green belt is very important. You only have to look at the English countryside. It's so pretty." Ms Goddard, who lives in the green belt in Hertsmere, Hertfordshire - 12 miles (19km) north-west of central London and within the M25 - added: "We need green spaces for recreation purposes and to make a demarcation between the settlements." Mr Bowman suggested a compromise could be reached "if we stopped thinking of the greenbelt as one single unit and differentiate between the areas of beauty and the intensive farmland". Penalise owners of empty properties Perhaps there is not a shortage of homes for Londoners after all. More than 80,000 homes in the capital currently stand empty. Last year, councils were empowered to use the Empty Homes Premium to charge home owners 50% more council tax if they left properties empty for two or more years. But the results of a Freedom of Information request published by BBC London last week showed that just 4,399 of the 80,489 empty properties in the capital had been subjected to the Empty Homes Premium. Responding to the revelations, Labour leader Ed Miliband said he was "deeply concerned". But Daniel Astaire, Westminster Council's Conservative cabinet member for housing, said: "The way to build homes is not to tax existing homes and stop people investing and buying in our city." Build on brownfield sites Building on brownfield sites - land previously used for industrial or commercial purposes - is possibly the least controversial solution on this list. In June, the Treasury announced 50,000 new London homes would be built on 20 such sites. But Mr Johnson has said the scheme is a "just a fraction of what needs to be done". The mayor has said 49,000 homes need to be built in the capital each year, while Labour puts this figure at 63,000. But developers face problems. Brownfield land is often contaminated and expensive to clean, getting planning permission to build can be a lengthy and costly process and putting in new roads and train links can prove tricky. But Lib Dem London Assembly member Stephen Knight said what was important was the type of homes that were built. "We need changes to planning laws, so the government can determine certain plots of land should be used for affordable housing," he suggested.

Here is a summary requirement:
Summarize the option of building more properties on green belt lands as a solution.

Please summarize the above article based on the given requirement:

# Output (a):
One solution to London's housing crisis that has been proposed is to build more homes on green belt land. This would mean more homes for Londoners, but it would also mean sacrificing some of the city's green spaces.

# Output (b):
One solution to London's housing crisis is to build more properties on green belt lands. This would mean bigger and cheaper homes for everyone, but there is opposition to this idea as green belt land is seen as important for recreation and to make a demarcation between settlements. A compromise could be reached by differentiating between areas of beauty and intensive farmland.

# 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 pressure to tackle London's housing crisis grows, a number of controversial views are being offered on how the problem should be addressed. By Andy DangerfieldBBC News, London 'House prices soar'. 'Fears of a housing bubble'. 'First-time buyers priced-out'. These are familiar headlines to Londoners. Each has appeared in the press in the past month, but similar headlines have become all-too recognisable over the past couple of years. London's house prices are rising by more than 20% annually, according to latest Office for National Statistics figures. The city needs 63,000 new homes each year, but only a third of these are being built while a "lost generation is being ruled out of ownership" due to "soaring rents, poor conditions and rising homelessness", it has been claimed. But what alternative solutions are being put forward to tackle the issue? Move old people to smaller flats One in four children in London live in overcrowded homes, according to English Housing Survey figures. At the same time, thousands of single elderly people live alone in multi-bedroomed suburban properties. In 2012, Local Government Association president Lord Richard Best proposed a radical solution: Building 100,000 homes designed especially for the needs of an ageing population. By downsizing, older people could free up accommodation for families, helping a whole generation of first-time buyers who are priced out of the market. "We free up lots of family housing, and we look after ourselves when we're older because, sooner or later, those three-bedroom, four-bedroom family houses are going to be too much for us," Lord Best said. But how easy would it be to convince elderly people to move out of the home they may have lived in for most of their lives? Peter Girling, chairman of Girlings Retirement Rentals, suggested the government should offer tax breaks to elderly people who give up their property. "You can't force people to move but you could help them along the way," he said. Adopt a European attitude Perhaps we should just face the fact the golden age of home ownership might be over, and learn to rent like the Germans? According to the 2011 German census, only 16% of Berliners owned their own place, compared with 50% in London. "People in Germany or Paris live in rented accommodation for their entire lives and there's no stigma attached," said Patricia Brown, who chairs the London Festival of Architecture. She said following the example of Germany and enabling people to rent better properties for longer could be a solution. For instance, in Germany tenants can only be evicted with a minimum of three months' notice. London's mayor Boris Johnson launched a voluntary accreditation scheme aimed at improving rental standards in May. In order to be approved for the London Rental Standard, landlords are required to meet a set of commitments including "transparent fees" and "improved response times for repairs". But Labour's London Assembly housing spokesman Tom Copley thinks the scheme does not go far enough. He suggested three-year tenancies "as standard with caps on annual rent increases" would make "renting in London more stable". Build all over the green belt There is still plenty of green belt land within the M25 and Sam Bowman, a research director at pro free market think-tank The Adam Smith Institute, thinks maybe the time has come to build on it. As of 2010, London had 484,173 hectares of green belt - 3.7% of England's total land area, according to the Campaign to Protect Rural England. Mr Bowman said this would mean "bigger homes and cheaper homes for everybody in order to give people that space to live". But Ann Goddard, of Elstree & Borehamwood Greenbelt Society, said: "Green belt is very important. You only have to look at the English countryside. It's so pretty." Ms Goddard, who lives in the green belt in Hertsmere, Hertfordshire - 12 miles (19km) north-west of central London and within the M25 - added: "We need green spaces for recreation purposes and to make a demarcation between the settlements." Mr Bowman suggested a compromise could be reached "if we stopped thinking of the greenbelt as one single unit and differentiate between the areas of beauty and the intensive farmland". Penalise owners of empty properties Perhaps there is not a shortage of homes for Londoners after all. More than 80,000 homes in the capital currently stand empty. Last year, councils were empowered to use the Empty Homes Premium to charge home owners 50% more council tax if they left properties empty for two or more years. But the results of a Freedom of Information request published by BBC London last week showed that just 4,399 of the 80,489 empty properties in the capital had been subjected to the Empty Homes Premium. Responding to the revelations, Labour leader Ed Miliband said he was "deeply concerned". But Daniel Astaire, Westminster Council's Conservative cabinet member for housing, said: "The way to build homes is not to tax existing homes and stop people investing and buying in our city." Build on brownfield sites Building on brownfield sites - land previously used for industrial or commercial purposes - is possibly the least controversial solution on this list. In June, the Treasury announced 50,000 new London homes would be built on 20 such sites. But Mr Johnson has said the scheme is a "just a fraction of what needs to be done". The mayor has said 49,000 homes need to be built in the capital each year, while Labour puts this figure at 63,000. But developers face problems. Brownfield land is often contaminated and expensive to clean, getting planning permission to build can be a lengthy and costly process and putting in new roads and train links can prove tricky. But Lib Dem London Assembly member Stephen Knight said what was important was the type of homes that were built. "We need changes to planning laws, so the government can determine certain plots of land should be used for affordable housing," he suggested.

Here is a summary requirement:
Summarize the option of building more properties on green belt lands as a solution.

Please summarize the above article based on the given requirement:

One solution to London's housing crisis that has been proposed is to build more homes on green belt land. This would mean more homes for Londoners, but it would also mean sacrificing some of the city's green spaces.

One solution to London's housing crisis is to build more properties on green belt lands. This would mean bigger and cheaper homes for everyone, but there is opposition to this idea as green belt land is seen as important for recreation and to make a demarcation between settlements. A compromise could be reached by differentiating between areas of beauty and intensive farmland.