>Do they see it some other way? As exploitation? But you are the one who put the content out there! If you didn't want others to see and use and learn from your

>Do they see it some other way? As exploitation? But you are the one who put the content out there! If you didn't want others to see and use and learn from your content, The point is that "others" learning from things is fine. The problem starts when it's a machine acting on behalf of a faceless mega-corporation. It's like the tragedy of the commons, except instead of originating from an invisible mass of takers, it mostly comes from a small amount of known actors like Microsoft and Google. No shit that people will rally against those. > First time I've heard this one. Who doesn't want the tools to improve? The reasoning is also given: improving machine learning has an environmental cost. It's also used to deskill jobs (which I don't think is a great argument, although it's not implausible for inequality to massively increase due to deployment of ML). The author also says AI is used to muddy public discourse, which is an understandable fear given that text generation can be used to fake e.g. some grassroots movement.