The article explicitly states a model is being trained on private data.

You have avoided answering any of my questions and resorted to basically name calling. In light of it, I also see no longer any value in talking to you. Have a nice day.

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.

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?

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.

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.

Which convictions on property?

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.

I’m on Lemmy everyday and haven’t come across any thread where vast numbers of people are cheering for big companies in any capacity. Of course you’ll probably have some who just want to stick it in the arse to AI companies and don’t think two steps further, but I don’t believe that’s anywhere close to a significant number of people.

I hope you don’t believe people who are opposed to AI companies stealing data are also simultaneously rooting for big corporations such as the ones you mentioned. That would be a very misguided idea unfortunately.

You put those words in my mouth, I never said I believe that. I’ve been saying that each person owns their data and have the right to decide what it can be used for.

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.

I’m sure you’ll be the first one to provide public access to your private photos and texts so everyone can check how to improve their lives with those valuable resources.

Amazing how propaganda by the rich is so successful in making people believe it’s not them who are the parasites.

A society that works for everybody is a fair society. Stealing intellectual property and user confidential data is not fair.

Assuming you’re right, it’s still not rent-seeking. If I believe that AI companies should be made liable for breaking copyright, I’m not personally receiving any monetary benefit. Where’s my rent?

It’s about principle. It’s unfair that a company can steal data and profit from it. Simple as that.

Precisely, and rent-seeking is what’s not happening here, as nobody is looking to profit. People are only looking to keep their private information private.

Your problem is that the landlord analogy just doesn’t suit this situation.

I’m not sure you have understood that people don’t want to profit from their data, they want to avoid corporations stealing their private texts and pictures to train models they’ll profit from.

In your eyes, what are these AI haters complaining about?

lol have a nice day

You’re not arguing in good faith - the wiki was the source for the existence of instincts you asked for. Also, Wikipedia is a very good resource actually, what difference would it make to you if I just copied the sources referenced in the article?

I didn’t get your second part.

Sigh…

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instinct

There you go, sources and all. It’s very illuminating.

My argument is that there is a basic moral code embedded in our genes via instincts. For example the ability to feel compassion and empathy - these are instinctual.

https://online.uwa.edu/news/empathy-in-animals/ (just an example)

Now, what exactly is “good” is a philosophical question without an objective answer. But to assume our entire behavior and everything makes a person “good” is learned is pretty disingenuous, at least under the definitions of good I’ve most commonly come across.