Avoiding AI is hard – but our freedom to opt out must be protected
Technology
25
Beiträge
18
Kommentatoren
0
Aufrufe
-
I disagree with the base premise that being opt out needs to be a right. That implies that having data be harvested for companies to make profits should be the default.
We should have the right to not have our data harvested by default. Requiring companies to have an opt in process with no coercion or other methods of making people feel obligated to opt in is our right.
being opt out needs to be a right. That implies that having data be harvested for companies to make profits should be the default.
As the years have passed, it has become the acceptable consensus for all of your personal information, thoughts, and opinions, to become freely available to anyone, at anytime, for any reason in order for companies to profit from it.
People keep believing this is normal and companies keep taking more. Unless everyone is willing to stand firm and say enough, I only see it declining further, unfortunately.
-
I think it may he more productive to get people to use alternative ai products that are foss and/or respect privacy.
You got downvoted because Lemmy users like knee jerk reactions and think that you can unmake a technology or idea. You can’t, Ai is here and it’s forever now. Best we can do is find ways to live with it and like you said, reward those who use it ethically. The Lemmy idea that Ai should be banned and not used is so unrealistic
-
I disagree with the base premise that being opt out needs to be a right. That implies that having data be harvested for companies to make profits should be the default.
We should have the right to not have our data harvested by default. Requiring companies to have an opt in process with no coercion or other methods of making people feel obligated to opt in is our right.
We should have the right to not have our data harvested by default.
How would that benefit the average person?
-
We should have the right to not have our data harvested by default.
How would that benefit the average person?
Less price gouging
-
I disagree with the base premise that being opt out needs to be a right. That implies that having data be harvested for companies to make profits should be the default.
We should have the right to not have our data harvested by default. Requiring companies to have an opt in process with no coercion or other methods of making people feel obligated to opt in is our right.
We should have the right to not have our data harvested by default.
I would maybe not go quite that far but at the very least this should apply to commercial interests and living people.
I think there are some causes where it should be acceptable to have your data usable by default, e.g. statistical analysis of health threats (think those studies about the danger of living near a coal power plant or similar things).
-
Less price gouging
How do you expect that to result?
-
How do you expect that to result?
I don't expect... It is already happening. Prime example are rents and wages.
There is nothing to be done about it. Too late
Dynamic pricing is a more current battle ground.
All of these are fixed based on cohort specific information and with dynamic pricing it can be literally individual level data.
-
I don't expect... It is already happening. Prime example are rents and wages.
There is nothing to be done about it. Too late
Dynamic pricing is a more current battle ground.
All of these are fixed based on cohort specific information and with dynamic pricing it can be literally individual level data.
The question was how "less price gouging" would result from a right not to have "your data harvested by default".
-
The question was how "less price gouging" would result from a right not to have "your data harvested by default".
By denying corpos data, their models are less effective especially if you are salting it when ever possible.
Do you really need Faceerh and Sundar the creep to have access to your tax returns and locations? Also, do you need them to know you like Asian women with large tits? Or that you and your friends enjoy a hobby?
-
You got downvoted because Lemmy users like knee jerk reactions and think that you can unmake a technology or idea. You can’t, Ai is here and it’s forever now. Best we can do is find ways to live with it and like you said, reward those who use it ethically. The Lemmy idea that Ai should be banned and not used is so unrealistic
You seem to misunderstand the ire;
AI in its current state has existed for over a decade. Watson used ML algorithms to beat Jeopardy by answering natural language questions in 2011. But techbros have gotten ahold of it and decided that copyright rules don’t apply to them and now the cat is out of the bag?!? From the outside it looks like bootlicking for the same bullshit that told us we would be using blockchain to process mortgages in 10 years… 10 years ago. AI isn’t just here to stay it’s been here for 70 years.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Avoiding AI is hard – but our freedom to opt out must be protected
As AI algorithms quietly take over life’s most important decisions, the right to opt out is fading – and with it, our autonomy.
The Conversation (theconversation.com)
You don't need AI. There are enough porn sites with real humans.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Avoiding AI is hard – but our freedom to opt out must be protected
As AI algorithms quietly take over life’s most important decisions, the right to opt out is fading – and with it, our autonomy.
The Conversation (theconversation.com)
The problem is not the tool. It's the inability to use the tool without a third party provider.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Avoiding AI is hard – but our freedom to opt out must be protected
As AI algorithms quietly take over life’s most important decisions, the right to opt out is fading – and with it, our autonomy.
The Conversation (theconversation.com)
If there was an ai to detect ai would you use it?
-
By denying corpos data, their models are less effective especially if you are salting it when ever possible.
Do you really need Faceerh and Sundar the creep to have access to your tax returns and locations? Also, do you need them to know you like Asian women with large tits? Or that you and your friends enjoy a hobby?
Doesn't that seem awfully roundabout? You make the practice less effective at the price of also making beneficial uses of the data, eg for medical research, less effective.
The mega-rich can see my tax returns if I can see theirs. The data of the rich and famous is much more valuable than mine. Let's not pretend that this helps the little guy. The little guy doesn't throw around money to get their flight data removed from Twitter.
-
You seem to misunderstand the ire;
AI in its current state has existed for over a decade. Watson used ML algorithms to beat Jeopardy by answering natural language questions in 2011. But techbros have gotten ahold of it and decided that copyright rules don’t apply to them and now the cat is out of the bag?!? From the outside it looks like bootlicking for the same bullshit that told us we would be using blockchain to process mortgages in 10 years… 10 years ago. AI isn’t just here to stay it’s been here for 70 years.
ML technology has existed for a while, but it's wild to claim that the technology pre-2020 is the same. A breakthrough happened.
-
The problem is not the tool. It's the inability to use the tool without a third party provider.
Local is a thing. And models are getting smaller with every iteration.
-
being opt out needs to be a right. That implies that having data be harvested for companies to make profits should be the default.
As the years have passed, it has become the acceptable consensus for all of your personal information, thoughts, and opinions, to become freely available to anyone, at anytime, for any reason in order for companies to profit from it.
People keep believing this is normal and companies keep taking more. Unless everyone is willing to stand firm and say enough, I only see it declining further, unfortunately.
I'm there with you, and I'd join in a protest to get it.
-
You don't need AI. There are enough porn sites with real humans.
And lots of hentai for stuff that is humanly impossible
-
We should have the right to not have our data harvested by default.
I would maybe not go quite that far but at the very least this should apply to commercial interests and living people.
I think there are some causes where it should be acceptable to have your data usable by default, e.g. statistical analysis of health threats (think those studies about the danger of living near a coal power plant or similar things).
I disagree. Yes, there are benefits to a lot of invasions of privacy, but that doesn't make it okay. If an entity wants my information, they can ask me for it.
One potential exception is for dead people, I think it makes sense for a of information to be released on death and preventing that should be opt in by the estate/survivors, depending on the will.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Avoiding AI is hard – but our freedom to opt out must be protected
As AI algorithms quietly take over life’s most important decisions, the right to opt out is fading – and with it, our autonomy.
The Conversation (theconversation.com)
I doubt we'll ever be offered a real opt-out option.
Instead I'm encouraged by the development of poison pills for the AI that are non-consensually harvesting human art (Glaze and Nightshade) and music (HarmonyCloak).
