3 ms·

You did when you uploaded it and consented to the ToS. Google was training on all of YouTube back in 2012 - https://slate.com/technology/2012/06/google-compute

You did when you uploaded it and consented to the ToS. Google was training on all of YouTube back in 2012 - https://slate.com/technology/2012/06/google-computers-learn-to-identify-cats-on-youtube-in-artificial-intelligence-study.html https://slate.com/technology/2012/06/google-computers-learn-...

janice1999 2y ago
The article is about third parties, e.g. OpenAI scraping Youtube and Reddit.
- buildbot 2y ago
  Responding to this GP point: > The uploader certainly did not ever consent to their face, voice and content being used to train models either. I'm also not saying I _support_ ToS
  - godelski 2y ago
    I'd argue that there was no consent here in the first place. I want to remind everyone, there are plenty of times and reasons a contract can be invalidated. Consent requires the person knowing what they are consenting to. How many people do you think know that posting your face on Facebook consents to using your face to generate photos? Your voice to create voice generators? What about when someone posts a group photo or video and despite you not having an account that the same rules apply? What about all the photos created by others and uploaded by those with no ownership or rights to the photos in the first place? They can't legally give away the rights. Then we also have to consider that the environment has changed and the terms changed under people. You may have signed up for Facebook and knew they were going to use your data to sell ads and do some analysis. But you didn't know AI was coming (let's be real, no one knew even at the time of AlexNet. It didn't become clear in tech groups until maybe 2016/2017). Sure, the agreements might "be the same" but people always contextualize things. In 2012 you might not care that Facebook "owns" your voice because you know they have to host the file, and contextually it is "just over legalize". But in 2024, now the context is that this trains a model that can replicate your voice and this means something VERY different. I think there's this common attitude of "Oh, well you agreed to the terms" as if this makes the terms fair, reasonable, or okay in the first place. It doesn't account for the reality of the situation. It just further legitimizes this world where a person is legally culpable for not having domain expertise. News flash, we live in a specialized world and you can't be a domain expert in everything. It doesn't account for the fact that there is often no alternative and there is serious cohesion at this point. Unfortunately, not all the choices in your life are up to you and many are social (and many of those are idiotic and can force you into decisions nearly no one in the group wants[0]) and not all the choices you make ultimately come down to you. If it was up to me everyone would be using Signal to communicate with me and no one would have bought Apple products when they made their devices unupgradable and charged more for _increasing_ your disk space than it would cost to buy 1.5 drives in the first place. But also, thank god that everything isn't up to me because I'm also a fucking idiot. No, I don't think there was consent this whole time and as time progressed we amount and capacity you have had to consent to has decreased. And dismissing it (the fact that consent is not binary) just makes the problem exponentially worse. Not to mention all the dark patterns which I can do a whole other rant about. [0] Prime example: the American presidential race. The vast majority of people would rather have neither Trump nor Biden running. The vast majority of people do not want a gerontocracy but will vote for one of the two candidates because what other choice do they have? People __could__ agree to to vote for a third party, but doing so gives such a strategic disadvantage that people are rational in attempting to choose from the options provided to them (see primaries).
mitthrowaway2 2y ago
There's consent, and then there's informed consent. It's not really possible for people to have given informed consent to AI model training on their data in an era when AI had much more limited capabilities relative to what it has now. It's one thing to give consent for gmail to train on your data to develop better spam filters or profile your interests; it's another to give consent for Google to convincingly impersonate your writing style, your facial tics, and your speaking voice. I think few people on Earth in 2012 really understood that their data could ever be used in such a way, and so their consent was not informed.
- squigz 2y ago
  > I think few people on Earth in 2012 really understood that their data could ever be used in such a way, and so their consent was not informed. I think we've been able to see this coming for many, many years.
  - godelski 2y ago
    Post hoc ergo propter hoc You may think this now, but I'm willing to bet a lot of money that you didn't believe this in 2012 and even 2015. Be careful to not rewrite history. It's an easy thing to do.
- godelski 2y ago
  > I think few people on Earth in 2012 really understood that their data could ever be used in such a way, and so their consent was not informed. Arguably this is just not consent, plain and simple. There could be no reasonable expectation for a person to believe they are agreeing to this. Whereas uninformed consent, I'd argue, is more like how people were agreeing to giving away their data but do not actually understand how the data is taken and used (let's be real, this includes even a lot, if not most, tech people).
- Workaccount2 2y ago
  If you use Google, your data actually is their data. If you're not paying for it, you don't own it
- 2y ago

janice1999 2y ago

The article is about third parties, e.g. OpenAI scraping Youtube and Reddit.

buildbot 2y ago
Responding to this GP point: > The uploader certainly did not ever consent to their face, voice and content being used to train models either. I'm also not saying I _support_ ToS
- godelski 2y ago
  I'd argue that there was no consent here in the first place. I want to remind everyone, there are plenty of times and reasons a contract can be invalidated. Consent requires the person knowing what they are consenting to. How many people do you think know that posting your face on Facebook consents to using your face to generate photos? Your voice to create voice generators? What about when someone posts a group photo or video and despite you not having an account that the same rules apply? What about all the photos created by others and uploaded by those with no ownership or rights to the photos in the first place? They can't legally give away the rights. Then we also have to consider that the environment has changed and the terms changed under people. You may have signed up for Facebook and knew they were going to use your data to sell ads and do some analysis. But you didn't know AI was coming (let's be real, no one knew even at the time of AlexNet. It didn't become clear in tech groups until maybe 2016/2017). Sure, the agreements might "be the same" but people always contextualize things. In 2012 you might not care that Facebook "owns" your voice because you know they have to host the file, and contextually it is "just over legalize". But in 2024, now the context is that this trains a model that can replicate your voice and this means something VERY different. I think there's this common attitude of "Oh, well you agreed to the terms" as if this makes the terms fair, reasonable, or okay in the first place. It doesn't account for the reality of the situation. It just further legitimizes this world where a person is legally culpable for not having domain expertise. News flash, we live in a specialized world and you can't be a domain expert in everything. It doesn't account for the fact that there is often no alternative and there is serious cohesion at this point. Unfortunately, not all the choices in your life are up to you and many are social (and many of those are idiotic and can force you into decisions nearly no one in the group wants[0]) and not all the choices you make ultimately come down to you. If it was up to me everyone would be using Signal to communicate with me and no one would have bought Apple products when they made their devices unupgradable and charged more for _increasing_ your disk space than it would cost to buy 1.5 drives in the first place. But also, thank god that everything isn't up to me because I'm also a fucking idiot. No, I don't think there was consent this whole time and as time progressed we amount and capacity you have had to consent to has decreased. And dismissing it (the fact that consent is not binary) just makes the problem exponentially worse. Not to mention all the dark patterns which I can do a whole other rant about. [0] Prime example: the American presidential race. The vast majority of people would rather have neither Trump nor Biden running. The vast majority of people do not want a gerontocracy but will vote for one of the two candidates because what other choice do they have? People __could__ agree to to vote for a third party, but doing so gives such a strategic disadvantage that people are rational in attempting to choose from the options provided to them (see primaries).

mitthrowaway2 2y ago

There's consent, and then there's informed consent. It's not really possible for people to have given informed consent to AI model training on their data in an era when AI had much more limited capabilities relative to what it has now. It's one thing to give consent for gmail to train on your data to develop better spam filters or profile your interests; it's another to give consent for Google to convincingly impersonate your writing style, your facial tics, and your speaking voice. I think few people on Earth in 2012 really understood that their data could ever be used in such a way, and so their consent was not informed.

squigz 2y ago
> I think few people on Earth in 2012 really understood that their data could ever be used in such a way, and so their consent was not informed. I think we've been able to see this coming for many, many years.
- godelski 2y ago
  Post hoc ergo propter hoc You may think this now, but I'm willing to bet a lot of money that you didn't believe this in 2012 and even 2015. Be careful to not rewrite history. It's an easy thing to do.
godelski 2y ago
> I think few people on Earth in 2012 really understood that their data could ever be used in such a way, and so their consent was not informed. Arguably this is just not consent, plain and simple. There could be no reasonable expectation for a person to believe they are agreeing to this. Whereas uninformed consent, I'd argue, is more like how people were agreeing to giving away their data but do not actually understand how the data is taken and used (let's be real, this includes even a lot, if not most, tech people).
Workaccount2 2y ago
If you use Google, your data actually is their data. If you're not paying for it, you don't own it
2y ago