4 ms·
> Why would anyone not opt-out? Because you might actually want to have the best possible global models ? Think of "not opting out" as "helping them build a be
by IMTDb 2y ago
> Why would anyone not opt-out?
Because you might actually want to have the best possible global models ?
Think of "not opting out" as "helping them build a better product". You are already paying for that product, if there is anything you can do, for free and without any additional time investment on your side that makes their next release better, why not do it ?
You gain a better product for the same price, they get a better product to sell. It might look like they get more than you do in the trade, and that's probably true; but just because they gain more does not mean you lose. A "win less / win more" situation is still a win-win. (It's even a win-win-win if you take into account all the other users of the platform).
Of course, if you value the privacy of these data a lot, and if you believe that by allowing them to train on them it is actually going to risk exposing private info, the story changes. But then you have an option to say stop. It's up to you to measure how much you value "getting a better product" vs "estimated risk of exposing some information considered private". Some will err on one side, some on the other.
- krainboltgreene 2y ago> Think of "not opting out" as "helping them build a better product" I feel like someone would only have this opinion if they've never ever dealt with any in the tech industry, or capitalist, in their entire life. So like 8-19 year olds? Except even they seem to understand that the profit absolutist goals undermine everything. This idea has the same smell as "We're a family" company meetings.
- nomel 2y ago[flagged]
- hackernewds 2y ago[flagged]
- ericjmorey 2y agoDo I have free access to and use of those models? If not, I don't care to help them.
- hehdhdjehehegwv 2y agoI for one consider it my duty to bravely sacrifice my privacy to the alter of corporate profit so that the true beauty of LLM trained in emojis and cat gifs can bring humanity to the next epoch.
- hackernewds 2y ago[flagged]
- cess11 2y ago"Best" and "better" is doing a lot of extremely heavy lifting here. Are you sure you actually want what's hiding under those weasel words?
- trinsic2 2y ago> Of course, if you value the privacy of these data a lot, and if you believe that by allowing them to train on them it is actually going to risk exposing private info, the story changes. But then you have an option to say stop. It's up to you to measure how much you value "getting a better product" vs "estimated risk of exposing some information considered private". Some will err on one side, some on the other. The problem with this reasoning, at least from what I am understanding is that you don't really know when/where the training of you data crosses the line into information you don't want to share until it's too late. It's also a slippery slope.
- genocidicbunny 2y ago> Think of "not opting out" as "helping them build a better product" Then they can simply pay me for that. I have zero interest in helping any company improve their products for free -- I need some reasonable consideration in return. For example, a percent of their revenues from products that use my data in their development. I'm totally willing to share the data with them for 2-3% of their revenues, that seems acceptable to me.
- modriano 2y agoHow could this make slack a better product? The platform was very convenient for sharing files and proprietary information with coworkers, but now I can't trust that slack won't slip in some "opt out if you don't want us to look at your data" "setting" in the future. I don't see any cogent generative AI tie-in for slack, and I can't imagine any company that would value a speculative, undefined hypothetical benefit more than they value their internal communications remaining internal.