• 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.

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

              Because it’s no different from what people have been doing since time immemorial - learning concepts and styles from things that they can see in public. To place restrictions on this is going to require a whole new category of intellectual property and it leads in very dubious directions.

              “Intellectual property” is inherently a restriction of peoples’ rights, and you need to have a very good reason to apply any such restriction that balances those restrictions with public benefits that derive from it. Copyright, for example, promotes the progress of science and the useful arts by making it “safe” to publish stuff rather than keeping it squirrelled away. Trademarks benefit people by making the providence of goods clear. Patents ensure that inventions aren’t lost.

              Rights are not restricted by default, they are unrestricted by default. When something new comes along it’s up to the people who want to restrict it to make their case. The default state of the world should be freedom, not prohibition and control.

              Trying to restrict the right to learn is an extremely dark place to be going. I strongly oppose that.

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

                  No problem. People often assume the worst about their opponents in debates (I succumb to that too, even though I try to avoid it), thank you for asking for an explanation of my position.