3 ms·

Why are you posting on the permanent public web if you don't want it to be read forever? You put up fliers at the local bar and are mad someone came by, took pi

Why are you posting on the permanent public web if you don't want it to be read forever? You put up fliers at the local bar and are mad someone came by, took pictures, and made a scrapbook of it. Trust me, I'm as annoyed as anyone about AI siphoning our culture to create bland grey replicas but people need to remember what websites are. They are other people's property, filled with cameras and surrounded by windows. When you go there and store your stuff, put up notes on the bulletin board, and whisper secrets to your friends, you're doing that on someone else's property, and they are watching you very closely. You are doing this in public.

happytiger 3y ago
Putting up fliers, choosing to be public is vastly, vastly different from using information previously provided under a different pretext for an entirely unwanted and unintended purpose, especially when it is to train digital intelligences that have inherently massive problematic social costs without explicit consent. Put another way, it’s fine with me if someone wants to use the content that I provided to drive value on a social website. It’s not OK with me that someone uses the content that I provided to replicate the author of what was written (without permission). One thing to really understand about artificial intelligence is that it is in someways, essentially a reverse engineering of the person providing the content. I did not authorize a digital twin to be created from the content that I provided. I did not authorize a digital copy of myself, but that is what all of these companies are doing. A fundamental stripping of the authorship to the point where you can replicate a proxy of the author and not just use the derivatives of that author. This is a fundamental difference, because no other technology has ever been able to go back up the food chain and replicate the author in a way that allows for not only replication of the content and its relative functions, but a complete photocopying of the ideas and thinking and other mechanisms and patterns of the person that’s creating it. It’s a profound difference of people have a hard time seeing.n I gave permission to use the content I provided. I did not give permission for someone to act as me or make a proxy of me based on what I have provided. I consented for my media to be used, but not me and that’s a huge difference.
- noman-land 3y ago
  While I philosophically agree with you, you're using a lot of words to describe what you felt but not what you actually agreed to. What you consented to is an ever changing EULA that says something new every few months. The "pretext" was that you thought you owned what you were posting but in reality you agreed that you didn't. You don't sign a contract to put up fliers in public. You thought you were posting on the public commons but you were leaving your posts on someone's property after they warned you they were going to use them for whatever they wanted. I personally hate this reality and scorn and avoid the cloud and SaaS as much as I can in my personal life. I deleted my accounts everywhere, and deleted all my content everywhere. Corporate cloud is shitty now. We need free, open, peer to peer, opt in, civilian run network infrastructure like yesterday.

happytiger 3y ago

Putting up fliers, choosing to be public is vastly, vastly different from using information previously provided under a different pretext for an entirely unwanted and unintended purpose, especially when it is to train digital intelligences that have inherently massive problematic social costs without explicit consent. Put another way, it’s fine with me if someone wants to use the content that I provided to drive value on a social website. It’s not OK with me that someone uses the content that I provided to replicate the author of what was written (without permission). One thing to really understand about artificial intelligence is that it is in someways, essentially a reverse engineering of the person providing the content. I did not authorize a digital twin to be created from the content that I provided. I did not authorize a digital copy of myself, but that is what all of these companies are doing. A fundamental stripping of the authorship to the point where you can replicate a proxy of the author and not just use the derivatives of that author. This is a fundamental difference, because no other technology has ever been able to go back up the food chain and replicate the author in a way that allows for not only replication of the content and its relative functions, but a complete photocopying of the ideas and thinking and other mechanisms and patterns of the person that’s creating it. It’s a profound difference of people have a hard time seeing.n I gave permission to use the content I provided. I did not give permission for someone to act as me or make a proxy of me based on what I have provided. I consented for my media to be used, but not me and that’s a huge difference.

noman-land 3y ago
While I philosophically agree with you, you're using a lot of words to describe what you felt but not what you actually agreed to. What you consented to is an ever changing EULA that says something new every few months. The "pretext" was that you thought you owned what you were posting but in reality you agreed that you didn't. You don't sign a contract to put up fliers in public. You thought you were posting on the public commons but you were leaving your posts on someone's property after they warned you they were going to use them for whatever they wanted. I personally hate this reality and scorn and avoid the cloud and SaaS as much as I can in my personal life. I deleted my accounts everywhere, and deleted all my content everywhere. Corporate cloud is shitty now. We need free, open, peer to peer, opt in, civilian run network infrastructure like yesterday.