8 ms·

I don't get it, you put that information on the internet, you have no expectation to privacy. But now maybe you learned a lesson, and you won't publicly share t

I don't get it, you put that information on the internet, you have no expectation to privacy. But now maybe you learned a lesson, and you won't publicly share things you don't want people to see?

stingraycharles 3y ago
The “right to be forgotten” is an explicit right in the EU, which I think applies here.
- constantly 3y ago
  EU rights do not apply in the US.
  - dantheman 3y ago
    The 'right to be forgotten' isn't a right.
  - niemandhier 3y ago
    True but globally operating corps are subjects to all kind of national laws and as soon as you have any presence in the EU those regulations apply. An online shop in Germany once removed Cuban cigars because of US trade sanctions. ClearView just declared to ignore the right to be forgotten, even for EU citizens. It will be interesting to se how this plays out. I guess it will take a few years…
  - muspimerol 3y ago
    No one is implying that. But companies have to comply with laws in jurisdictions where they operate. OpenAI and other generative AI companies certainly operate in the EU.
- qweqwe14 3y ago
  I'm not saying that this right is a bad thing, but the reality is that it's rarely enforceable. As soon as you put something on the internet, you have every "right" to expect that it's there forever. No amount of legislation can outweigh the technical reality.
  - esafak 3y ago
    The government has no problem getting rid of CSAM and terrorist material, for practical purposes. It's not a technical problem.
    - qweqwe14 3y ago
      They only get rid of those materials that they can seize. I doubt they will be able to seize a properly hosted onion domain. It's just that most of the actors aren't good enough with technology. That's the reason you mostly see the pretty dumb guys getting caught. As long as you are smarter and more tech-savvy than 80% of the criminals, you are pretty much out of reach for the feds.
    - 627467 3y ago
      It is obviously a technical challenge. Image yourself trying to facing 3 pictures, one of CSAM, another of terrorist material and just some random photo of random guy eating ice scream: what steps would you do to determine if this last photo is "legal" or not? YouTube have decades of attempt at determining if uploaded content violates copyright, normally through fingerprinting content submitted by right holders. YouTube still fails at catching all copyright infringement. That's why they are generally protected from prosecution while they demonstrate reasonable attempt that preventing their services from being misused. Imagine ALL IMAGES IN THE WORLD being submitted for fingerprinting. How about malicious or erroneous submitions that taint datasets? Also: right to be forgotten is a horrible misleading name. At most you have right to request data to be removed from datasets. And only if you have some legal basis that demonstrate that your data is in that dataset. It is not a right to be "forgotten". Imagine you yourself being told to "forget an image, sound, etc", how is this enforced? You may even ask for proof that you know the content you are being told to forget. How do you do this?
      - edgyquant 3y ago
        If you have the image and the person reaches out saying it’s them and they want it removed, you have a pretty good idea of the legality. As stated, this isn’t a technical problem it’s a bureaucratic one. Most companies didn’t think they had to remove it so didn’t have steps in place to do so. Now a lot of them do, with GenAI just being the latest group of companies who feel they have an argument in favor of not having to do so.
- valianteffort 3y ago
  Americans are not bound by EU laws. We appreciate forcing iPhone to USB-C, but you can keep the rest of your authoritarian laws.
cratermoon 3y ago
People didn't put their private medical records on the open internet. They may have uploaded them to a service they thought was respecting privacy but was either selling their data without disclosure or was just straight up incompetent and uploaded private-user-data.zip to a public Dropbox share.
esafak 3y ago
I do have an expectation to privacy. It is possible to secure information if so desired. Do you expect your online bank to secure your data? Your email provider? Your healthcare provider? So you do expect some privacy. I just expect some more. I believe that companies should not own my data just because they provide me with services off it. From that, consequences follow. I have a better proposition: let's slap companies that don't respect privacy with fines until they too learn a lesson.
exabrial 3y ago
> you put that information on the internet, you have no expectation to privacy That was the expectation until Zuckerberg came along. People were putting tons of stuff on BBSs, intranets, and other stuff 20+ years beforehand because people had the idea of "consent" back then existed: using someones information for a purpose they didn't intend was (and still is) wrong.
- FeepingCreature 3y ago
  Using someone's information for a purpose they didn't intend is wrong? What? This just seems obviously mistaken. I don't agree with that at all. I'm not even sure how to argue about that. Lots of art, science and technology can be considered as "using someone's information for a purpose they didn't intend." It is extremely normal for people to find new uses for things; information is not exempt from this.
  - pzs 3y ago
    Consider the thought experiment that you give your postal address to some business, because you want to subscribe to regular grocery deliveries. Then you notice that each delivered package contains a small transparent bag with some with powder in it. Whoever treats others' information can only do so with a clear purpose and for a defined time period according to current EU laws. If, however, you were referring to information that you published on the Internet for everyone's benefit then you would still need to consider intellectual property rights. In the open source software world we have the licenses that deal with this, and then there are copyright laws protecting content providers (not making a case here whether they are good or not). I guess what makes a difference is if there is some business involved either in the production or in the consumption side of the equation and if we accept that "machine learning" is the same as "human learning". EDIT: separated paragraphs, typo
    - visarga 3y ago
      Copyrights protect the copying of the original text, but models take gradients. Are gradients protected as well? Even when data is copyrighted it still has legitimate value for training, pure ideas don't get copyright protection, only expression.
Sparkyte 3y ago
GPDR and many data rights exist today, it is still applicable to AI.
jjav 3y ago
> I don't get it, you put that information on the internet, you have no expectation to privacy. While that is somewhat true, there are multiple angles to it. The big one is expectations. It used to be that if you shared something on an obscure forum that had like 100 readers, most of those people expected that only 100 would see their posting. And it was true, so it reinforced the expectation for nontechnical people, which is basically everyone within a rounding error. Then everything gets indexes and now fed to AI and suddenly billions of people have easy access to what they felt was very limited in distribution. You could file this under "People don't threat model correctly", but also (more importantly) under the fact that technology should consider human nature before breaking expectations.
- visarga 3y ago
  You should consider the size of the training set as well. A blog post in a 30T dataset like RedPajama has less impact than one in a fine-tuning dataset of 1000 examples. The gradients from all tokens are added up, they stack on top of each other and their influence is diluted in larger datasets.
- fsckboy 3y ago
  do you ever save things you see on the internet that have some "scandal" merit, say for example you don't like Donald Trump and you come across a variety of material that's embarrassing to him. Or your school bully, or your gf's ex, or Macron in France, Trudeau in Canada, etc. Would you feel that other people should get to tell you to delete it because you're not allowed to use any aids to help you remember or prove why they are bad people (in your estimation)? Freedom to remember is part and parcel of free speech.
devjab 3y ago
There are a lot of aspects to this though. We write code for solar power plants, some of it is open source or at least publicly available. What if we wrote something that turned out to be bad and it was used by someone else through the AI and it broke their plant… would we be responsible? Now, you’re probably thinking about this from a reasoning or technical perspective in which case it’ll appear to be a ridiculous concern… because it is a ridiculous concern. That’s not how our legal department sees it though. They see it as risk mitigation, and they actually take it rather serious.
thayne 3y ago
> you put that information on the internet That isn't necessarily true. Someone else might have put the information on the Internet. That could be someone else uploading a photo of you, or records of your home purchase on a city's public records, or an obituary or wedding announcement that listed you as family, etc.etc.
bigbacaloa 3y ago
[dead]
bigbacaloa 3y ago
[dead]
thefz 3y ago
This is similar to saying that if girls don't want to be molested, they should not wear a mini skirt in public. One may not have been aware of the future existence of AI when writing on a public platform. Or one simply may want his blog/thoughts to be intended for human consumption and not to train the latest commercial product which will reap from his content and not share any profit.
- scrollaway 3y ago
  How is it similar to that strawman? There is no expectation of privacy in public. That is pretty much the definition. It’s not victim blaming.
  - godelski 3y ago
    > There is no expectation of privacy in public This is claimed a lot but absolutely not true. Stop repeating this very obviously false statement.
    - scrollaway 3y ago
      Obviously false? I’m sorry but “private” and “public” are exact opposites to one another. Being “in public” is quite exactly where you don’t have a general expectation of being “in private”.
      - esafak 3y ago
        Yes, they are in opposition, but it is a non-sequitur to then associate it with privacy. And most critically, to consider privacy to be a binary attribute, rather than a multidimensional and graduated quality. Do you believe you have the right not to have a satellite track or drone hover over you in public and share that feed, associated with your identity, with the whole world? I sure do. You should too.
        godelski 3y ago
        And I want to add how quickly things have changed in this space. In 2005, only 2% of Americans had cellphones. By 2010 that was still under 30%. But by 2016, more than 80%. Not to mention that these phones' qualities have drastically changed as well. In 2010 you could walk around in public and would be very surprised if you found yourself in the background of someone's video posted online. Now I don't think anyone would be shocked, especially living in a big city (definitely would in a rural town). Let alone that video be high enough quality to recognize you. We can probably say the same about the number of CCTV cameras as well. Or even how much data was being gathered on the web. I don't think enough people are internalizing how radically the world has shifted in the last 10-20 years. 10 years ago generative image models couldn't generate a black and white 32x32 image of a face. Now I can trivially transform a photo of my friend into a dog and make him bark. For most people this technology came out of nowhere because of the lag. The same goes true for other things like the internet, cellphones, social media, etc. Is it really that much of a wonder why there's so much craziness going on right now when so much has changed so fast? And fwiw, speaking of satellites, there are now multiple companies (not governments. Companies) who's goal is to get a daily snapshot of the entire surface of the earth. They already have cameras where you can see clearly the color of cars from space. There are some where you can see people (albeit hard to see, but you only need to identify a dot to track it). We now should expect that resolution to increase, not only in number of pixels, but frequency. This technology can do a lot of good, just like ML, but at the same time it can be used for a log of destruction and oppression, just like ML. The question is if these technologies are going to go the way of atomics or the way of the internet. But even simply saying this, I, a dumb human who's barely more advanced than our chimp cousins and barely capable of communicating, have a hard time internalizing what this future world will be like, despite being only 10 or so years away.
ClumsyPilot 3y ago
> you put that information on the internet, you have no expectation to privacy. But if Disney puts information on the internet, and you misuse it, lawyers will chase you to the ends of the earth. We both have same right and copyright, but somehow it's one rule for them and another rule for me.
greysphere 3y ago
More often than not it's other people putting the information on the internet. Celebrities and politicians already have had to deal with this but at least had some compensation/resources to deal with it. We need some protections or else existing in public spaces will become only viable for the rich. For everyone else you'll be 'caught' picking your nose in the sidewalk and then be fired from your restaurant job or whatever. Not to mention the ramifications for public protest.
muspimerol 3y ago
Did you read the article? There are cases where the data was explicitly not publicly shared. Why would this journalist have no expectation to privacy? https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2022/09/artist-finds-private-medical-record-photos-in-popular-ai-training-data-set/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2022/09/artis... Even for publicly shared data, there is legislation in many parts of the world (notably the entire EU) that enforces an individual's right to have their data deleted.
- valianteffort 3y ago
  Did you read what I said? Anything posted on the internet is public. Just because you think it's private does not make it so. To that end, you should consider any file on your computer to be public as well if it's connected to the internet, as there are countless ways that data could be exfiltrated.
  - muspimerol 3y ago
    That may well be true, but it's not what the article is about. The article is about individuals removing personal data from GenAI products. GenAI companies in many places have a legal responsibility to facilitate this. Your concern about all internet-connected data being "public" is only a concern if you're dealing with malicious actors, which is not what's at hand here.
    - valianteffort 3y ago
      And like I have been saying the argument is foolish. You posted something on the internet. That makes it public. It doesn't matter if you thought it was private. Generative AI companies in the US, afaik, do not have any legal responsibility to remove that training data. There's no difference between an AI being trained on public data, or a human being trained on public data. Likewise there should be no expectation to "unsee" something someone willingly posted in public.
godelski 3y ago
This is wildly disingenuous. I don't even know where to begin. Services are advertised as private. So why wouldn't people be acting like they are private. Oh, you're not tech literate and so don't know something "obvious?" Guess it's your fault for listening to your financial advisor and losing all your money too. We live in a specialized world. You don't want to go down this route and it is unreasonable because we can't have infinite knowledge and infinite time to gain that. There's absolutely no way you know in high detail: tech, medicine, economics, law, science, politics, or any other expertise. You don't even know one of these, but rather a small section of one. Yes, they may be "public" but you can have an expectation of privacy in public. Also your lack of expectation in public is not infinite. The lack of privacy in public is an astonishingly new phenomena. Realistically in the last 10-15 years as we've seen cellphones become prolific. Things were way different just in the early 2000s, where there weren't nearly as many cameras either by CCT or just in peoples' pockets. Let alone microphones or high resolution images. Most importantly, the environment has changed on the internet too. 10 years ago the only people scraping up the entire internet was big tech and govs. Now it's every startup and group of people that can. These are very different situations. 2015 image generation was still a joke. Goodfellow's GAN paper was posted in late 2014. That's not even 10 years ago that we're struggling to generate black and white faces at 32x32 pixels. Things are VERY different and if you think you could have predicted this I'm going to call bullshit. Only Captain Hindsight could do that. This kind of thinking is simply just victim blaming and lording your particular expertise over others while ignoring your own ignorance because you let post hoc thinking rewrite your past.
masterfooo 3y ago
That is an assumption. No one has ever agreed on such concept on paper.

I don't get it, you put that information on the internet, you have no expectation to privacy. But now maybe you learned a lesson, and you won't publicly share things you don't want people to see?

stingraycharles 3y ago

The “right to be forgotten” is an explicit right in the EU, which I think applies here.

constantly 3y ago
EU rights do not apply in the US.
- dantheman 3y ago
  The 'right to be forgotten' isn't a right.
- niemandhier 3y ago
  True but globally operating corps are subjects to all kind of national laws and as soon as you have any presence in the EU those regulations apply. An online shop in Germany once removed Cuban cigars because of US trade sanctions. ClearView just declared to ignore the right to be forgotten, even for EU citizens. It will be interesting to se how this plays out. I guess it will take a few years…
- muspimerol 3y ago
  No one is implying that. But companies have to comply with laws in jurisdictions where they operate. OpenAI and other generative AI companies certainly operate in the EU.
qweqwe14 3y ago
I'm not saying that this right is a bad thing, but the reality is that it's rarely enforceable. As soon as you put something on the internet, you have every "right" to expect that it's there forever. No amount of legislation can outweigh the technical reality.
- esafak 3y ago
  The government has no problem getting rid of CSAM and terrorist material, for practical purposes. It's not a technical problem.
  - qweqwe14 3y ago
    They only get rid of those materials that they can seize. I doubt they will be able to seize a properly hosted onion domain. It's just that most of the actors aren't good enough with technology. That's the reason you mostly see the pretty dumb guys getting caught. As long as you are smarter and more tech-savvy than 80% of the criminals, you are pretty much out of reach for the feds.
  - 627467 3y ago
    It is obviously a technical challenge. Image yourself trying to facing 3 pictures, one of CSAM, another of terrorist material and just some random photo of random guy eating ice scream: what steps would you do to determine if this last photo is "legal" or not? YouTube have decades of attempt at determining if uploaded content violates copyright, normally through fingerprinting content submitted by right holders. YouTube still fails at catching all copyright infringement. That's why they are generally protected from prosecution while they demonstrate reasonable attempt that preventing their services from being misused. Imagine ALL IMAGES IN THE WORLD being submitted for fingerprinting. How about malicious or erroneous submitions that taint datasets? Also: right to be forgotten is a horrible misleading name. At most you have right to request data to be removed from datasets. And only if you have some legal basis that demonstrate that your data is in that dataset. It is not a right to be "forgotten". Imagine you yourself being told to "forget an image, sound, etc", how is this enforced? You may even ask for proof that you know the content you are being told to forget. How do you do this?
    - edgyquant 3y ago
      If you have the image and the person reaches out saying it’s them and they want it removed, you have a pretty good idea of the legality. As stated, this isn’t a technical problem it’s a bureaucratic one. Most companies didn’t think they had to remove it so didn’t have steps in place to do so. Now a lot of them do, with GenAI just being the latest group of companies who feel they have an argument in favor of not having to do so.
valianteffort 3y ago
Americans are not bound by EU laws. We appreciate forcing iPhone to USB-C, but you can keep the rest of your authoritarian laws.

cratermoon 3y ago

People didn't put their private medical records on the open internet. They may have uploaded them to a service they thought was respecting privacy but was either selling their data without disclosure or was just straight up incompetent and uploaded private-user-data.zip to a public Dropbox share.

esafak 3y ago

I do have an expectation to privacy. It is possible to secure information if so desired. Do you expect your online bank to secure your data? Your email provider? Your healthcare provider? So you do expect some privacy. I just expect some more. I believe that companies should not own my data just because they provide me with services off it. From that, consequences follow. I have a better proposition: let's slap companies that don't respect privacy with fines until they too learn a lesson.

exabrial 3y ago

> you put that information on the internet, you have no expectation to privacy That was the expectation until Zuckerberg came along. People were putting tons of stuff on BBSs, intranets, and other stuff 20+ years beforehand because people had the idea of "consent" back then existed: using someones information for a purpose they didn't intend was (and still is) wrong.

FeepingCreature 3y ago
Using someone's information for a purpose they didn't intend is wrong? What? This just seems obviously mistaken. I don't agree with that at all. I'm not even sure how to argue about that. Lots of art, science and technology can be considered as "using someone's information for a purpose they didn't intend." It is extremely normal for people to find new uses for things; information is not exempt from this.
- pzs 3y ago
  Consider the thought experiment that you give your postal address to some business, because you want to subscribe to regular grocery deliveries. Then you notice that each delivered package contains a small transparent bag with some with powder in it. Whoever treats others' information can only do so with a clear purpose and for a defined time period according to current EU laws. If, however, you were referring to information that you published on the Internet for everyone's benefit then you would still need to consider intellectual property rights. In the open source software world we have the licenses that deal with this, and then there are copyright laws protecting content providers (not making a case here whether they are good or not). I guess what makes a difference is if there is some business involved either in the production or in the consumption side of the equation and if we accept that "machine learning" is the same as "human learning". EDIT: separated paragraphs, typo
  - visarga 3y ago
    Copyrights protect the copying of the original text, but models take gradients. Are gradients protected as well? Even when data is copyrighted it still has legitimate value for training, pure ideas don't get copyright protection, only expression.

Sparkyte 3y ago

GPDR and many data rights exist today, it is still applicable to AI.

jjav 3y ago

> I don't get it, you put that information on the internet, you have no expectation to privacy. While that is somewhat true, there are multiple angles to it. The big one is expectations. It used to be that if you shared something on an obscure forum that had like 100 readers, most of those people expected that only 100 would see their posting. And it was true, so it reinforced the expectation for nontechnical people, which is basically everyone within a rounding error. Then everything gets indexes and now fed to AI and suddenly billions of people have easy access to what they felt was very limited in distribution. You could file this under "People don't threat model correctly", but also (more importantly) under the fact that technology should consider human nature before breaking expectations.

visarga 3y ago
You should consider the size of the training set as well. A blog post in a 30T dataset like RedPajama has less impact than one in a fine-tuning dataset of 1000 examples. The gradients from all tokens are added up, they stack on top of each other and their influence is diluted in larger datasets.
fsckboy 3y ago
do you ever save things you see on the internet that have some "scandal" merit, say for example you don't like Donald Trump and you come across a variety of material that's embarrassing to him. Or your school bully, or your gf's ex, or Macron in France, Trudeau in Canada, etc. Would you feel that other people should get to tell you to delete it because you're not allowed to use any aids to help you remember or prove why they are bad people (in your estimation)? Freedom to remember is part and parcel of free speech.

devjab 3y ago

There are a lot of aspects to this though. We write code for solar power plants, some of it is open source or at least publicly available. What if we wrote something that turned out to be bad and it was used by someone else through the AI and it broke their plant… would we be responsible? Now, you’re probably thinking about this from a reasoning or technical perspective in which case it’ll appear to be a ridiculous concern… because it is a ridiculous concern. That’s not how our legal department sees it though. They see it as risk mitigation, and they actually take it rather serious.

thayne 3y ago

> you put that information on the internet That isn't necessarily true. Someone else might have put the information on the Internet. That could be someone else uploading a photo of you, or records of your home purchase on a city's public records, or an obituary or wedding announcement that listed you as family, etc.etc.

bigbacaloa 3y ago

[dead]

bigbacaloa 3y ago

[dead]

thefz 3y ago

This is similar to saying that if girls don't want to be molested, they should not wear a mini skirt in public. One may not have been aware of the future existence of AI when writing on a public platform. Or one simply may want his blog/thoughts to be intended for human consumption and not to train the latest commercial product which will reap from his content and not share any profit.

scrollaway 3y ago
How is it similar to that strawman? There is no expectation of privacy in public. That is pretty much the definition. It’s not victim blaming.
- godelski 3y ago
  > There is no expectation of privacy in public This is claimed a lot but absolutely not true. Stop repeating this very obviously false statement.
  - scrollaway 3y ago
    Obviously false? I’m sorry but “private” and “public” are exact opposites to one another. Being “in public” is quite exactly where you don’t have a general expectation of being “in private”.
    - esafak 3y ago
      Yes, they are in opposition, but it is a non-sequitur to then associate it with privacy. And most critically, to consider privacy to be a binary attribute, rather than a multidimensional and graduated quality. Do you believe you have the right not to have a satellite track or drone hover over you in public and share that feed, associated with your identity, with the whole world? I sure do. You should too.
      - godelski 3y ago
        And I want to add how quickly things have changed in this space. In 2005, only 2% of Americans had cellphones. By 2010 that was still under 30%. But by 2016, more than 80%. Not to mention that these phones' qualities have drastically changed as well. In 2010 you could walk around in public and would be very surprised if you found yourself in the background of someone's video posted online. Now I don't think anyone would be shocked, especially living in a big city (definitely would in a rural town). Let alone that video be high enough quality to recognize you. We can probably say the same about the number of CCTV cameras as well. Or even how much data was being gathered on the web. I don't think enough people are internalizing how radically the world has shifted in the last 10-20 years. 10 years ago generative image models couldn't generate a black and white 32x32 image of a face. Now I can trivially transform a photo of my friend into a dog and make him bark. For most people this technology came out of nowhere because of the lag. The same goes true for other things like the internet, cellphones, social media, etc. Is it really that much of a wonder why there's so much craziness going on right now when so much has changed so fast? And fwiw, speaking of satellites, there are now multiple companies (not governments. Companies) who's goal is to get a daily snapshot of the entire surface of the earth. They already have cameras where you can see clearly the color of cars from space. There are some where you can see people (albeit hard to see, but you only need to identify a dot to track it). We now should expect that resolution to increase, not only in number of pixels, but frequency. This technology can do a lot of good, just like ML, but at the same time it can be used for a log of destruction and oppression, just like ML. The question is if these technologies are going to go the way of atomics or the way of the internet. But even simply saying this, I, a dumb human who's barely more advanced than our chimp cousins and barely capable of communicating, have a hard time internalizing what this future world will be like, despite being only 10 or so years away.

ClumsyPilot 3y ago

> you put that information on the internet, you have no expectation to privacy. But if Disney puts information on the internet, and you misuse it, lawyers will chase you to the ends of the earth. We both have same right and copyright, but somehow it's one rule for them and another rule for me.

greysphere 3y ago

More often than not it's other people putting the information on the internet. Celebrities and politicians already have had to deal with this but at least had some compensation/resources to deal with it. We need some protections or else existing in public spaces will become only viable for the rich. For everyone else you'll be 'caught' picking your nose in the sidewalk and then be fired from your restaurant job or whatever. Not to mention the ramifications for public protest.

muspimerol 3y ago

Did you read the article? There are cases where the data was explicitly not publicly shared. Why would this journalist have no expectation to privacy? https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2022/09/artist-finds-private-medical-record-photos-in-popular-ai-training-data-set/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2022/09/artis... Even for publicly shared data, there is legislation in many parts of the world (notably the entire EU) that enforces an individual's right to have their data deleted.

valianteffort 3y ago
Did you read what I said? Anything posted on the internet is public. Just because you think it's private does not make it so. To that end, you should consider any file on your computer to be public as well if it's connected to the internet, as there are countless ways that data could be exfiltrated.
- muspimerol 3y ago
  That may well be true, but it's not what the article is about. The article is about individuals removing personal data from GenAI products. GenAI companies in many places have a legal responsibility to facilitate this. Your concern about all internet-connected data being "public" is only a concern if you're dealing with malicious actors, which is not what's at hand here.
  - valianteffort 3y ago
    And like I have been saying the argument is foolish. You posted something on the internet. That makes it public. It doesn't matter if you thought it was private. Generative AI companies in the US, afaik, do not have any legal responsibility to remove that training data. There's no difference between an AI being trained on public data, or a human being trained on public data. Likewise there should be no expectation to "unsee" something someone willingly posted in public.

godelski 3y ago

This is wildly disingenuous. I don't even know where to begin. Services are advertised as private. So why wouldn't people be acting like they are private. Oh, you're not tech literate and so don't know something "obvious?" Guess it's your fault for listening to your financial advisor and losing all your money too. We live in a specialized world. You don't want to go down this route and it is unreasonable because we can't have infinite knowledge and infinite time to gain that. There's absolutely no way you know in high detail: tech, medicine, economics, law, science, politics, or any other expertise. You don't even know one of these, but rather a small section of one. Yes, they may be "public" but you can have an expectation of privacy in public. Also your lack of expectation in public is not infinite. The lack of privacy in public is an astonishingly new phenomena. Realistically in the last 10-15 years as we've seen cellphones become prolific. Things were way different just in the early 2000s, where there weren't nearly as many cameras either by CCT or just in peoples' pockets. Let alone microphones or high resolution images. Most importantly, the environment has changed on the internet too. 10 years ago the only people scraping up the entire internet was big tech and govs. Now it's every startup and group of people that can. These are very different situations. 2015 image generation was still a joke. Goodfellow's GAN paper was posted in late 2014. That's not even 10 years ago that we're struggling to generate black and white faces at 32x32 pixels. Things are VERY different and if you think you could have predicted this I'm going to call bullshit. Only Captain Hindsight could do that. This kind of thinking is simply just victim blaming and lording your particular expertise over others while ignoring your own ignorance because you let post hoc thinking rewrite your past.

masterfooo 3y ago

That is an assumption. No one has ever agreed on such concept on paper.