5 ms·

I understand and completely agree republishing content (even altered) isn't cool, and I also agree government use of technology for mass surveillance is incompa

I understand and completely agree republishing content (even altered) isn't cool, and I also agree government use of technology for mass surveillance is incompatible with our idea of democratic/open societies. However, in the case of LinkedIn posts you have already given the ideas behind your content to the world (and in this case specifically and explicitly LinkedIn) for free. I've said this before, but it's sad how quickly this community swapped from being champions of the free exchange and use of information for the betterment of humanity to gleefully stomping on an incredible and beautiful new technology because someone else might make money off it. Reminds me of the Judgement of Solomon [1] (people would rather kill the whole technology and all the incredible things that may come with it then miss out on "my cut!", "my cut!" even if it's a single LinkedIn post in a corpus of billions) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgement_of_Solomon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgement_of_Solomon

Barrin92 2y ago
>I also agree government use of technology for mass surveillance is incompatible with our idea of democratic/open societies. well, corporate use of technology for mass surveillance is equally incompatible with the idea of a democratic society, which is why the EU imposes limits on what LInkedIn can do with your data, and thank God for it. Free exchange of information is being able to access a textbook at the library, not a corporate behemoth vacuuming people's personal information so they can sell them to the highest bidder to put you under surveillance the next time you attempt to switch a job or send you more ads. Betterment of humanity? Blink twice if a LinkedIn PR person is holding you at gunpoint
- zaptrem 2y ago
  > Betterment of humanity? Blink twice if a LinkedIn PR person is holding you at gunpoint I was referring to Generative AI in general, this use-case is quite boring. > a corporate behemoth vacuuming people's personal information so they can sell them to the highest bidder Do people not use LinkedIn to explicitly signal to the world that they're looking for a job? Why does it matter how that information is being delivered? If you don't want the world to know you're looking for a job simply don't update LinkedIn? > corporate use of technology for mass surveillance is equally incompatible with the idea of a democratic society The argument against government power/surveillance is that they have a monopoly on it and may use their power to hurt people. It is good to legally protect sensitive information like health data from advertisers, but in this case you can, again, simply not use LinkedIn. What difference does it make if the info is collected by a company looking for new hires, a third party analytics company working on behalf of them, or LinkedIn itself working on behalf of them? It's not private data.
  - sweeter 2y ago
    "just dont use LinkedIn" is such a narrow minded thing to say. How do you feasibly expect people to exist in society without interacting with any of these systems and corporations? if its not LinkedIn its Indeed or w/e else. They all collect data and most of them are pumping it into some kind of LLM or behavioral analysis algo. That is not functionally different than the argument for the Government doing it, except for that the Gov has a monopoly on violence. This applies for pretty much everything in our daily life like banking, shopping etc... "just don't interact" is such a useless nothing-burger that side-steps the problem entirely. You can "solve" all societal problems by becoming a hermit, moving to the woods and living off the land... but that is not a functional or reasonable thing to do for 99.99% of people. Its baffling especially when the reasonable solution is simply having a bare minimum standards of protection across the board, which many countries already implement to great effect.
    - tourmalinetaco 2y ago
      I’ve never gotten a job via LinkedIn, and neither has my wife. We both got our entire job history due to connections already formed through college. In fact I can’t name a single genuine offer that came from LinkedIn/Indeed, let alone that depended on me having an account. People have been getting great paying jobs for almost the entirety of industrialized society without LinkedIn. Saying “don’t interact” with LinkedIn, especially if you disagree with their “you are the product” mentality, is a fairly realistic stance.
  - ants_everywhere 2y ago
    > ... surveillance is that they have a monopoly on it Wait what, this isn't even close to being true > government power ... is that they have a monopoly on it This is only true by definition. McDonalds also has a monopoly on serving McDonalds food. > use their power to hurt people This is universally true of anyone with power. The difference between the government and other powerful organizations is that the government has a universal feedback mechanism via voting. In a democracy everyone gets a say in the laws that affect them.
    - 2y ago
- csallen 2y ago
  > not a corporate behemoth vacuuming people's personal information so they can sell them to the highest bidder to put you under surveillance the next time you attempt to switch a job or send you more ads I genuinely don't see what the problem is. I rarely post updates on LinkedIn. When I do, they're updates that are intended to be broadcast to the public. If some execs at LinkedIn are smart enough to find a way to profit off the back of that, why should I be upset about that? Why are you upset about it?
  - tourmalinetaco 2y ago
    Because they somehow thought a free service was there to benefit them, and not generate revenue.
- CaptainFever 2y ago
  > Free exchange of information is being able to access a textbook at the library, not a corporate behemoth vacuuming people's personal information so they can sell them to the highest bidder to put you under surveillance the next time you attempt to switch a job or send you more ads. Betterment of humanity? Blink twice if a LinkedIn PR person is holding you at gunpoint This sort of language is unproductive and causes further division. It's just buzzwords hoping to evoke a certain emotion in the reader. I'm being genuine when I say the following: > corporate behemoth Why is this bad? (Steelman: it isn't bad by itself, but it makes the other things worse.) > vacuuming Evokes a certain image, but it is not true. It is copied. > personal information True, but note that it is public in this case. Why is this bad? What's so special about personal information (I'm interpreting this as PII specifically)? (Steelman: it can be used to track you; see "under surveillance the next time you attempt to switch a job") > sell them to the highest bidder Why is this bad? (Steelman: it feels unfair, to have contributed something without compensation; Counterpoint: access to LinkedIn itself is your compensation, such fairness is a subjective feeling, compensation is for example not needed if you reuse GPL code in a commercial context) > under surveillance the next time you attempt to switch a job Is this true? If this is true, I can see why LinkedIn AI would be bad, but only for this specifically. If this becomes false, then it's no longer bad. I doubt it is true, however, since this is not generative AI, which they're likely focusing on. > send you more ads This has nothing to do with generative AI, which I assume we're talking about. > Betterment of humanity? Blink twice if a LinkedIn PR person is holding you at gunpoint Not a useful statement.
_DeadFred_ 2y ago
Has this community done a complete 180 randomly out of the blue, or is it a reflection of how the new technology is being used? And if this previously ultra friendly community did a 180, imagine the feelings in the general public that never had the friendly attitude.
- CaptainFever 2y ago
  > A reflection of how the new technology is being used This statement can be interpreted as: 1. Some AI is bad (e.g. "some AI take jobs"), therefore LinkedIn's AI is bad. This is an invalid argument, so we can ignore this. 2. All AI is bad, therefore LinkedIn's AI is bad. Valid, but probably unsound, because intuitively this would mean saying "AI used to fight cancer is bad". So we can ignore this too. 3. LinkedIn's AI is bad by itself. Why? What is LinkedIn using it for? Is it just a chatbot? There's no risk of obsolete careers from that. Is it a privacy issue? It is public data. Is it because it makes money? What's wrong with that? Is it simply a fear of the new? I think so, but that's just my uncharitable opinion. Please elaborate.
ants_everywhere 2y ago
> government use of technology for mass surveillance Well, for context, when the US wanted to create a mass surveillance apparatus in the 1990s, they funded the tech sector. Now the tech sector both does the surveillance and fuels the economy. The surveillance info is fed back to the government in various ways and is increasingly used for things like military targeting. Generally speaking, any information you give to a private company you should assume will be used by your government. Either directly via subpoena/tapped data lines/etc, or indirectly via AI services provided by these companies to the government.
batch12 2y ago
The Judgment of Solomon is a bad analogy as the mother is willing to give her baby away to save it. You've reversed the roles and are comparing those who want control of their data to the woman who never had a claim to the child to begin with.
- zaptrem 2y ago
  I see the open weights/source model community as the ones willing to give the baby away.
potamic 2y ago
> how quickly this community swapped from being champions of the free exchange and use of information for the betterment of humanity to gleefully stomping on an incredible and beautiful new technology You're assuming this community is a monoculture. I'm sure you'll see people on various sides, from ardent free exchange advocates to die hard copyright supporters.
soco 2y ago
Maybe I don't understand your comment so please help me: government use of surveillance is bad, and private use of surveillance is acceptable? So it's bad if an institution over which I could have some influence uses surveillance, but if it's a random company with hidden agendas that's totally fine?
allturtles 2y ago
> incredible and beautiful new technology To me, one could call this technology incredible and beautiful in the same way that a detached observer might use those terms to describe a hurricane bearing down on my hometown. In the Kantian sense it is more "sublime"[0] rather than "beautiful", and yet the sublime is experienced as such only if it can be viewed from a position of safety; but there appears to be no safe place from AI. [0]: https://1000wordphilosophy.com/2023/11/11/kants-theory-of-the-sublime https://1000wordphilosophy.com/2023/11/11/kants-theory-of-th...
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

Barrin92 2y ago

>I also agree government use of technology for mass surveillance is incompatible with our idea of democratic/open societies. well, corporate use of technology for mass surveillance is equally incompatible with the idea of a democratic society, which is why the EU imposes limits on what LInkedIn can do with your data, and thank God for it. Free exchange of information is being able to access a textbook at the library, not a corporate behemoth vacuuming people's personal information so they can sell them to the highest bidder to put you under surveillance the next time you attempt to switch a job or send you more ads. Betterment of humanity? Blink twice if a LinkedIn PR person is holding you at gunpoint

zaptrem 2y ago
> Betterment of humanity? Blink twice if a LinkedIn PR person is holding you at gunpoint I was referring to Generative AI in general, this use-case is quite boring. > a corporate behemoth vacuuming people's personal information so they can sell them to the highest bidder Do people not use LinkedIn to explicitly signal to the world that they're looking for a job? Why does it matter how that information is being delivered? If you don't want the world to know you're looking for a job simply don't update LinkedIn? > corporate use of technology for mass surveillance is equally incompatible with the idea of a democratic society The argument against government power/surveillance is that they have a monopoly on it and may use their power to hurt people. It is good to legally protect sensitive information like health data from advertisers, but in this case you can, again, simply not use LinkedIn. What difference does it make if the info is collected by a company looking for new hires, a third party analytics company working on behalf of them, or LinkedIn itself working on behalf of them? It's not private data.
- sweeter 2y ago
  "just dont use LinkedIn" is such a narrow minded thing to say. How do you feasibly expect people to exist in society without interacting with any of these systems and corporations? if its not LinkedIn its Indeed or w/e else. They all collect data and most of them are pumping it into some kind of LLM or behavioral analysis algo. That is not functionally different than the argument for the Government doing it, except for that the Gov has a monopoly on violence. This applies for pretty much everything in our daily life like banking, shopping etc... "just don't interact" is such a useless nothing-burger that side-steps the problem entirely. You can "solve" all societal problems by becoming a hermit, moving to the woods and living off the land... but that is not a functional or reasonable thing to do for 99.99% of people. Its baffling especially when the reasonable solution is simply having a bare minimum standards of protection across the board, which many countries already implement to great effect.
  - tourmalinetaco 2y ago
    I’ve never gotten a job via LinkedIn, and neither has my wife. We both got our entire job history due to connections already formed through college. In fact I can’t name a single genuine offer that came from LinkedIn/Indeed, let alone that depended on me having an account. People have been getting great paying jobs for almost the entirety of industrialized society without LinkedIn. Saying “don’t interact” with LinkedIn, especially if you disagree with their “you are the product” mentality, is a fairly realistic stance.
- ants_everywhere 2y ago
  > ... surveillance is that they have a monopoly on it Wait what, this isn't even close to being true > government power ... is that they have a monopoly on it This is only true by definition. McDonalds also has a monopoly on serving McDonalds food. > use their power to hurt people This is universally true of anyone with power. The difference between the government and other powerful organizations is that the government has a universal feedback mechanism via voting. In a democracy everyone gets a say in the laws that affect them.
  - 2y ago
csallen 2y ago
> not a corporate behemoth vacuuming people's personal information so they can sell them to the highest bidder to put you under surveillance the next time you attempt to switch a job or send you more ads I genuinely don't see what the problem is. I rarely post updates on LinkedIn. When I do, they're updates that are intended to be broadcast to the public. If some execs at LinkedIn are smart enough to find a way to profit off the back of that, why should I be upset about that? Why are you upset about it?
- tourmalinetaco 2y ago
  Because they somehow thought a free service was there to benefit them, and not generate revenue.
CaptainFever 2y ago
> Free exchange of information is being able to access a textbook at the library, not a corporate behemoth vacuuming people's personal information so they can sell them to the highest bidder to put you under surveillance the next time you attempt to switch a job or send you more ads. Betterment of humanity? Blink twice if a LinkedIn PR person is holding you at gunpoint This sort of language is unproductive and causes further division. It's just buzzwords hoping to evoke a certain emotion in the reader. I'm being genuine when I say the following: > corporate behemoth Why is this bad? (Steelman: it isn't bad by itself, but it makes the other things worse.) > vacuuming Evokes a certain image, but it is not true. It is copied. > personal information True, but note that it is public in this case. Why is this bad? What's so special about personal information (I'm interpreting this as PII specifically)? (Steelman: it can be used to track you; see "under surveillance the next time you attempt to switch a job") > sell them to the highest bidder Why is this bad? (Steelman: it feels unfair, to have contributed something without compensation; Counterpoint: access to LinkedIn itself is your compensation, such fairness is a subjective feeling, compensation is for example not needed if you reuse GPL code in a commercial context) > under surveillance the next time you attempt to switch a job Is this true? If this is true, I can see why LinkedIn AI would be bad, but only for this specifically. If this becomes false, then it's no longer bad. I doubt it is true, however, since this is not generative AI, which they're likely focusing on. > send you more ads This has nothing to do with generative AI, which I assume we're talking about. > Betterment of humanity? Blink twice if a LinkedIn PR person is holding you at gunpoint Not a useful statement.

_DeadFred_ 2y ago

Has this community done a complete 180 randomly out of the blue, or is it a reflection of how the new technology is being used? And if this previously ultra friendly community did a 180, imagine the feelings in the general public that never had the friendly attitude.

CaptainFever 2y ago
> A reflection of how the new technology is being used This statement can be interpreted as: 1. Some AI is bad (e.g. "some AI take jobs"), therefore LinkedIn's AI is bad. This is an invalid argument, so we can ignore this. 2. All AI is bad, therefore LinkedIn's AI is bad. Valid, but probably unsound, because intuitively this would mean saying "AI used to fight cancer is bad". So we can ignore this too. 3. LinkedIn's AI is bad by itself. Why? What is LinkedIn using it for? Is it just a chatbot? There's no risk of obsolete careers from that. Is it a privacy issue? It is public data. Is it because it makes money? What's wrong with that? Is it simply a fear of the new? I think so, but that's just my uncharitable opinion. Please elaborate.

ants_everywhere 2y ago

> government use of technology for mass surveillance Well, for context, when the US wanted to create a mass surveillance apparatus in the 1990s, they funded the tech sector. Now the tech sector both does the surveillance and fuels the economy. The surveillance info is fed back to the government in various ways and is increasingly used for things like military targeting. Generally speaking, any information you give to a private company you should assume will be used by your government. Either directly via subpoena/tapped data lines/etc, or indirectly via AI services provided by these companies to the government.

batch12 2y ago

The Judgment of Solomon is a bad analogy as the mother is willing to give her baby away to save it. You've reversed the roles and are comparing those who want control of their data to the woman who never had a claim to the child to begin with.

zaptrem 2y ago
I see the open weights/source model community as the ones willing to give the baby away.

potamic 2y ago

> how quickly this community swapped from being champions of the free exchange and use of information for the betterment of humanity to gleefully stomping on an incredible and beautiful new technology You're assuming this community is a monoculture. I'm sure you'll see people on various sides, from ardent free exchange advocates to die hard copyright supporters.

soco 2y ago

Maybe I don't understand your comment so please help me: government use of surveillance is bad, and private use of surveillance is acceptable? So it's bad if an institution over which I could have some influence uses surveillance, but if it's a random company with hidden agendas that's totally fine?

allturtles 2y ago

> incredible and beautiful new technology To me, one could call this technology incredible and beautiful in the same way that a detached observer might use those terms to describe a hurricane bearing down on my hometown. In the Kantian sense it is more "sublime"[0] rather than "beautiful", and yet the sublime is experienced as such only if it can be viewed from a position of safety; but there appears to be no safe place from AI. [0]: https://1000wordphilosophy.com/2023/11/11/kants-theory-of-the-sublime https://1000wordphilosophy.com/2023/11/11/kants-theory-of-th...

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]