I’ve been saying that each person owns their data and have the right to decide what it can be used for.
Fair enough, but that’s a really fine point. You can do what you like with your property; use it, make it a gift, destroy it, give it to charity, … But in daily life of most people, property rights are all about money.
Your ideas demand a massive amount of free money for the likes of Disney. On a societal level, that’s basically it. I feel justified in ignoring a few people who have idiosyncratic plans.
ETA:
It’s a separate discussion but: that rich people own most of the assets has a lot to do with the fact they steal and use stolen resources to appropriate more resources. It’s parasitic and needs to stop.
No. Wealth inequality is an unavoidable part of having property. I can find a simulation for you, if you want.
Inequality is fine as long as it isn’t extreme. You can have limits on inequality by implementing rules. In my opinion it’s about finding a balance where neither the richest nor the poorest person strays too far from the median, otherwise you start having trouble and move slowly towards an oligarchy that’ll end in violence and suffering eventually.
Not sure why you think that but I don’t, I have strong feelings on personal privacy.
I believe you’re constantly trying to steer the conversation into “you and everyone who opposes unethical AI model training only want data owners to get paid”, but it’s not how it is. I want to prevent AI corporations from stealing. It’s a big difference.
Stealing is something you do with property. It’s not something you do with privacy.
So what do you mean by “personal privacy”? Most would consider stuff intentionally made public to be explicitly not private. What actually is the problem?
AI companies are training models on photos and texts posted only for your friends to see in their networks, and worse, also on e-mails, personal images people are backing up, etc. That’s private information. It shouldn’t be used for training models.
With public information that everyone can see it’s from my point of view a gray area. If a magazine takes a public photo and uses it to sell copies, they’re stealing from the artist. But if they take that same photo and use it to train and sell an AI model, it’s a difficult situation to assess. I think our best approach so far is to respect the author’s wishes if they explicitly want to opt out. And yes of course I believe in intellectual property and copyright, if that was your question. They’re there for a reason, and they not only benefit big corporations but also small and independent artists and content creators.
Fair enough, but that’s a really fine point. You can do what you like with your property; use it, make it a gift, destroy it, give it to charity, … But in daily life of most people, property rights are all about money.
Your ideas demand a massive amount of free money for the likes of Disney. On a societal level, that’s basically it. I feel justified in ignoring a few people who have idiosyncratic plans.
ETA:
No. Wealth inequality is an unavoidable part of having property. I can find a simulation for you, if you want.
Inequality is fine as long as it isn’t extreme. You can have limits on inequality by implementing rules. In my opinion it’s about finding a balance where neither the richest nor the poorest person strays too far from the median, otherwise you start having trouble and move slowly towards an oligarchy that’ll end in violence and suffering eventually.
Ok. And how would these rules fare against your convictions on property?
Which convictions on property?
You obviously have strong feelings on intellectual property. What actually are your views on that?
Not sure why you think that but I don’t, I have strong feelings on personal privacy.
I believe you’re constantly trying to steer the conversation into “you and everyone who opposes unethical AI model training only want data owners to get paid”, but it’s not how it is. I want to prevent AI corporations from stealing. It’s a big difference.
Stealing is something you do with property. It’s not something you do with privacy.
So what do you mean by “personal privacy”? Most would consider stuff intentionally made public to be explicitly not private. What actually is the problem?
AI companies are training models on photos and texts posted only for your friends to see in their networks, and worse, also on e-mails, personal images people are backing up, etc. That’s private information. It shouldn’t be used for training models.
With public information that everyone can see it’s from my point of view a gray area. If a magazine takes a public photo and uses it to sell copies, they’re stealing from the artist. But if they take that same photo and use it to train and sell an AI model, it’s a difficult situation to assess. I think our best approach so far is to respect the author’s wishes if they explicitly want to opt out. And yes of course I believe in intellectual property and copyright, if that was your question. They’re there for a reason, and they not only benefit big corporations but also small and independent artists and content creators.
Can you give me an example or two of such a model?
Thanks for bringing us back there. That’s the classical conservative argument. It’s not wrong.
One thing you said earlier was: You can have limits on inequality by implementing rules.
So, how do such reforms stack up against your conservatism?