4 ms·

(1) means that taxes, the legal and justice systems, much of the public education system, criticism, begging on the street, and protest are all unethical, among

(1) means that taxes, the legal and justice systems, much of the public education system, criticism, begging on the street, and protest are all unethical, among I'm sure many others. Not to suggest you believe they are- I'm sure that you can present very strong arguments for some or all of these- but that makes it much less simple and leaves room for debate about whether this situation is also an exception.

edent 3y ago
People are free to leave a place which taxes them, or to homeschool their children, etc. This situation is not an exception. There is no compelling reason to force people to have their work ingested by an AI. Unless you believe that large companies have the inherent right to disregard the rights of individuals?
- ToValueFunfetti 3y ago
  Adding opt-out conceivably covers all of these examples except for criticism and the justice system. It does also rope in DALL-E and Stable Diffusion. Do I have the right to not let {MINORITY} ingest my work? The right to not allow my words to be quoted? To say you cannot rip my mp3s from CD and must buy it twice if you want to listen on your ipod? To prevent it from entering public domain or to ban fair use transformations like parody? Was it unethical of Emily Dickinson's family to publish her work posthumously and without consent, and, separately, is it unethical for me to read it today? Was it wrong to translate The Art of War, given that Sun Tzu wanted it to give the Chinese an advantage over their enemies? I (obviously) don't believe that large companies can disregard human rights. I do believe that ASI is a necessary precondition to a post-scarcity utopia and that every day it is delayed is a day that a billion people will suffer unnecessarily, and I admit that probably biases me against people in the first world who are doing their damnedest to delay it anyway because they want money. I do recognize that the possibility that OpenAI et al don't get us any closer to ASI or the possibility that ASI destroys rather than enriches humanity are valid critiques of that. Ultimately, I'm strongly confident that people don't have unlimited rights to what is done with their works, weakly confident that one such limit is on the right to prevent their use as training data, and very strongly confident that this is a complicated ethical question.

edent 3y ago

People are free to leave a place which taxes them, or to homeschool their children, etc. This situation is not an exception. There is no compelling reason to force people to have their work ingested by an AI. Unless you believe that large companies have the inherent right to disregard the rights of individuals?

ToValueFunfetti 3y ago
Adding opt-out conceivably covers all of these examples except for criticism and the justice system. It does also rope in DALL-E and Stable Diffusion. Do I have the right to not let {MINORITY} ingest my work? The right to not allow my words to be quoted? To say you cannot rip my mp3s from CD and must buy it twice if you want to listen on your ipod? To prevent it from entering public domain or to ban fair use transformations like parody? Was it unethical of Emily Dickinson's family to publish her work posthumously and without consent, and, separately, is it unethical for me to read it today? Was it wrong to translate The Art of War, given that Sun Tzu wanted it to give the Chinese an advantage over their enemies? I (obviously) don't believe that large companies can disregard human rights. I do believe that ASI is a necessary precondition to a post-scarcity utopia and that every day it is delayed is a day that a billion people will suffer unnecessarily, and I admit that probably biases me against people in the first world who are doing their damnedest to delay it anyway because they want money. I do recognize that the possibility that OpenAI et al don't get us any closer to ASI or the possibility that ASI destroys rather than enriches humanity are valid critiques of that. Ultimately, I'm strongly confident that people don't have unlimited rights to what is done with their works, weakly confident that one such limit is on the right to prevent their use as training data, and very strongly confident that this is a complicated ethical question.