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?
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.
Ok. You can’t give an actual example, so you use emotional blackmail to discourage disagreement. Noted.
If that’s what you want to call conservative go ahead, although it’s not what I’d typically associate with that word.
It’s called Chesterton’s fence.
Not sure where you see the problem?
To cut right to the chase. The problem is your intellectual dishonesty. First, it’s privacy, then it’s intellectual property, then privacy again. You try the spiel about sticking it to the corporations. When that is debunked, inequality is fine. Now it’s about “intellectual workers”, as if any of the higher-ups would share the loot.
You don’t give a fuck about logic or reason. You’re just throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks. You’re working through a list of talking points without ever engaging your brain. A third world guy will do that for a dollar an hour.
And don’t tell me that you’re doing this for free. Doing free labor for billionaires so that billionaires can get some free money from the rest of us is the stupidest thing I ever heard of. Ahh. But I have heard of it.
Did you read the article? They’re using your private photos from your camera roll. It is an actual example of what I said. The part I mentioned about public photos was of previously posted photos on Facebook. Please read the article otherwise don’t ask for it.
Well, I’m replying to what you’re asking and arguing about, as you can tell if you reread our thread. I care about both privacy and intellect property. Shouldn’t be that hard to grasp. Also, you’ve just been asking questions and assuming my point of view without ever stating your own stance. Do you believe it’s fine for AI companies to use your personal data and your intellect property to train models they’ll profit from without your consent?
If you want to resort to ad hominem we can say good day and move on, that’s not the point of discussing things here. At least not for me. If you’d like to answer my question about what is contradictory about enforcing wealth taxes and protecting IP at the same time, I’m all ears.
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?
Ok. You can’t give an actual example, so you use emotional blackmail to discourage disagreement. Noted.
It’s called Chesterton’s fence.
To cut right to the chase. The problem is your intellectual dishonesty. First, it’s privacy, then it’s intellectual property, then privacy again. You try the spiel about sticking it to the corporations. When that is debunked, inequality is fine. Now it’s about “intellectual workers”, as if any of the higher-ups would share the loot.
You don’t give a fuck about logic or reason. You’re just throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks. You’re working through a list of talking points without ever engaging your brain. A third world guy will do that for a dollar an hour.
And don’t tell me that you’re doing this for free. Doing free labor for billionaires so that billionaires can get some free money from the rest of us is the stupidest thing I ever heard of. Ahh. But I have heard of it.
Did you read the article? They’re using your private photos from your camera roll. It is an actual example of what I said. The part I mentioned about public photos was of previously posted photos on Facebook. Please read the article otherwise don’t ask for it.
Well, I’m replying to what you’re asking and arguing about, as you can tell if you reread our thread. I care about both privacy and intellect property. Shouldn’t be that hard to grasp. Also, you’ve just been asking questions and assuming my point of view without ever stating your own stance. Do you believe it’s fine for AI companies to use your personal data and your intellect property to train models they’ll profit from without your consent?
If you want to resort to ad hominem we can say good day and move on, that’s not the point of discussing things here. At least not for me. If you’d like to answer my question about what is contradictory about enforcing wealth taxes and protecting IP at the same time, I’m all ears.