Jaded

Google literally considers itself an ad company. They have a huge framework meant to profit off of ads shown on other products and platforms. They sell data as a service to better target consumers for advertisement. It's not comparable to a tv channel.

It does feel like a lecture sometimes, even with stuff that is just difficult and not immoral.

It's not always sex tourism. Of the people I was referring to, it was during a week-long fishing trip, the prostitution wasn't the reason for the trip and only occupied a small part of it.

I think it's gross regardless and I'd rather none of it was a reality, so you'll have to find someone else to argue with.

The corporations already have all the data, users literally gave it to them by uploading it. Open source only has scrapped data. If you start regulating, you kill open source but the big players will literally just shrug it off.

Traditional artists already lost. It sucks but now we get to find out if the winner is all of society or only just Adobe and Shutterstock.

I'm the opposite. If someone does it at home, they probably do so regularly while a vacation is once every now and then. I've known a couple of normal people that did it on vacay, it's just another facet of the party for them, letting down their hair etc. The ones I know that do it at home tho...yikes. But it's all kind of gross regardless.

Check out fusion 360. There is a free version for personal use, you have to search for it on their website since they hide it.

There is no open source future if all we have is the blender and nothing else

It depends for what kind of AI and but no, giving sources and building with just volunteer data is just not possible at our current technological level. I'm mostly talking about large llms because that's what's really at stake and they train on huge amounts of data. Like ALL of stack, GitHub, Reddit, etc. Just fine tuning them on a consumer level takes more than 50 000 question and answer pairs, that's just one tiny superficial layer that's added on top.

Grammerly should absolutely add an opt out option to gain consumers trust, but forcing the the whole industry to do so is a disaster.

If individuals can opt out, so will websites to "protect their users". Then we get data hoarding, where stack and GitHub opt out of all open source options but sell it to the only ones that can now afford to build ais, Microsoft and google. it won't include data of certain individuals, the few that opt out, but I'm guessing eventually the opt in will be directly into the terms of service of websites, you opt in or you fuck off.

How does anyone except corporations benefit from this kind of circus. In 10 years, AI will be doing most office work. Google isn't dumb and wants that profit. They and openai have all the data, they can strong arm or buy what they are missing. Restricting and legislating only widens their moat.

Most of the data is scraped, it's not up to the website. You can't give a list of citation since it isn't a search engine, it doesn't know where the information comes from and it's highly transformative, it melds information from hundreds if not thousand of different sources.

If it worked only with volunteer work, there would simply be not enough data.

Any law restricting data use in AI is only going to benefit corporations, there isn't a solution for individual content creators. You can't pay them for the drop in the bucket they add, thee logistics are insane. You can let them opt out, but then you need to do the same for whole websites which leads to a corporate hellscape where three companies own our whole economy since they are the only ones who can train ais.