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.
Just a recent example. Of course they’re vague about what “public” means, but if you really believe they aren’t using all the photos, you’d be pretty naive in my eyes.
If that’s what you want to call conservative go ahead, although it’s not what I’d typically associate with that word. Not sure where you see the problem? What does taxing wealth at increasing rates to decrease inequality have to do with enforcing intellectual property to protect intellectual workers?
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?
https://www.theverge.com/meta/694685/meta-ai-camera-roll
Just a recent example. Of course they’re vague about what “public” means, but if you really believe they aren’t using all the photos, you’d be pretty naive in my eyes.
If that’s what you want to call conservative go ahead, although it’s not what I’d typically associate with that word. Not sure where you see the problem? What does taxing wealth at increasing rates to decrease inequality have to do with enforcing intellectual property to protect intellectual workers?