• circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    No, they don’t agree that using data without consent is a bad thing.

    If this developer doesn’t mind taking data without consent, I hope they don’t have an issue with people pirating their game. That’s a slippery slope if I ever saw one.

    • FaceDeer@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      “Slippery slope” is also a fallacy. Training an AI and copying a game are two different things and it’s entirely reasonable to hold the position that one is ok and the other is not.

      • circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        You’re missing the point. Both are using data (work of the dev on a game, work of an artist on art) without consent.

        • FaceDeer@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m not missing the point. Just because they’re both “using data without consent” doesn’t mean they’re the same thing. Playing baseball and smashing someone’s car both involve swinging a bat but that’s where the similarity ends.

          There are many ways that you can “use data without consent” that are perfectly legal.

          • circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Legal does not necessarily equate to ethical. And the law will eventually change (I think) to mitigate some of these shortcomings that AI training has highlighted.

            • FaceDeer@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Legal does not necessarily equate to ethical.

              Of course not. But “ethical” is a matter of subjective debate. You say X is unethical, I say X is ethical, and ultimately there’s no way to tell who’s “right.”

              Law’s different, the whole point of it is to have a system that sorts these things out.

              And the law will eventually change (I think) to mitigate some of these shortcomings that AI training has highlighted.

              So it’s not currently illegal to train AIs like this? That’s been my point this whole time. It’s a different thing from the things that are currently illegal (such as “theft”).

              • circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Currently legal, but unethical. I never claimed it was illegal. (I did mention that scraping usually breaks a TOS, but that’s definitely a legal grey area and moot if its publicly accessible data)

                • FaceDeer@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Unethical according to your personal opinion. My opinion on the ethics of the matter differ, and that’s just as valid as yours. You don’t get to declare “that’s unethical” and then expect everyone to just fall in line with your belief. Way back at the root of this you said:

                  But it’s clear a lot of people don’t understand why using data without consent is a bad thing in this context,

                  Which, as I argued back then, suggests that you think that the notion that “using data without consent” is a bad thing that people who disagree with you just don’t understand. No, they understand perfectly well. They just disagree with you.