4 ms·

If Meta allows us to opt out of having our data harvested, then doesn’t it imply that we should really be offered the opportunity to opt in? Then, opt out shou

If Meta allows us to opt out of having our data harvested, then doesn’t it imply that we should really be offered the opportunity to opt in? Then, opt out should be the default. How can the company explain this?

afavour 3y ago
> How can the company explain this? That the vast majority of users don’t care and neither do lawmakers.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  In my experience, most people do care, quite a lot. The trouble is that they don't understand the issue, and when told what these companies are doing, they don't believe it.
  - natch 3y ago
    >when told what these companies are doing lol The models are not doing what advocates of this kind of setting say they are doing, so it will be nice when the concerns fade away. Using data to train models is what they are doing. Storing copies or parts of images in the model so exact lookalikes will be regenerated from the model is what mistaken people say they are doing. I mean sure it’s possible a model can generate your likeness but it would also be able generate it if you had not been in the training set. And it’s possible atoms can spontaneously assemble into a teapot orbiting the sun but that doesn’t make it likely.
    - throwaway5959 3y ago
      “And it’s possible atoms can spontaneously assemble into a teapot orbiting the sun but that doesn’t make it likely.” Ah thank you for making me think of Douglas Adams and smile.
    - JohnFen 3y ago
      > Using data to train models is what they are doing. Yes, among other things. > Storing copies or parts of images in the model so exact lookalikes will be regenerated from the model is what mistaken people say they are doing. I'm not sure why you're saying this as a counterargument to me, considering that I've never made that argument in the first place.
      - natch 3y ago
        Thanks for clarifying. I chose what seemed the most likely interpretation of an ambiguity. If it works for you, think of it as a drawing out of the argument, instead of a counterpoint to you. I’m arguing against the others who think there has been some grievous wrong committed by training models on this data.
natch 3y ago
The data is not being used in the way alarmists describe things, so it’s on the alarmists to explain why they think there is a problem.

afavour 3y ago

> How can the company explain this? That the vast majority of users don’t care and neither do lawmakers.

JohnFen 3y ago
In my experience, most people do care, quite a lot. The trouble is that they don't understand the issue, and when told what these companies are doing, they don't believe it.
- natch 3y ago
  >when told what these companies are doing lol The models are not doing what advocates of this kind of setting say they are doing, so it will be nice when the concerns fade away. Using data to train models is what they are doing. Storing copies or parts of images in the model so exact lookalikes will be regenerated from the model is what mistaken people say they are doing. I mean sure it’s possible a model can generate your likeness but it would also be able generate it if you had not been in the training set. And it’s possible atoms can spontaneously assemble into a teapot orbiting the sun but that doesn’t make it likely.
  - throwaway5959 3y ago
    “And it’s possible atoms can spontaneously assemble into a teapot orbiting the sun but that doesn’t make it likely.” Ah thank you for making me think of Douglas Adams and smile.
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    > Using data to train models is what they are doing. Yes, among other things. > Storing copies or parts of images in the model so exact lookalikes will be regenerated from the model is what mistaken people say they are doing. I'm not sure why you're saying this as a counterargument to me, considering that I've never made that argument in the first place.
    - natch 3y ago
      Thanks for clarifying. I chose what seemed the most likely interpretation of an ambiguity. If it works for you, think of it as a drawing out of the argument, instead of a counterpoint to you. I’m arguing against the others who think there has been some grievous wrong committed by training models on this data.

natch 3y ago

The data is not being used in the way alarmists describe things, so it’s on the alarmists to explain why they think there is a problem.