this post was submitted on 03 Jul 2025
1 points (100.0% liked)
Science Memes
15551 readers
186 users here now
Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!
A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.
Rules
- Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
- Keep it rooted (on topic).
- No spam.
- Infographics welcome, get schooled.
This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.
Research Committee
Other Mander Communities
Science and Research
Biology and Life Sciences
- !abiogenesis@mander.xyz
- !animal-behavior@mander.xyz
- !anthropology@mander.xyz
- !arachnology@mander.xyz
- !balconygardening@slrpnk.net
- !biodiversity@mander.xyz
- !biology@mander.xyz
- !biophysics@mander.xyz
- !botany@mander.xyz
- !ecology@mander.xyz
- !entomology@mander.xyz
- !fermentation@mander.xyz
- !herpetology@mander.xyz
- !houseplants@mander.xyz
- !medicine@mander.xyz
- !microscopy@mander.xyz
- !mycology@mander.xyz
- !nudibranchs@mander.xyz
- !nutrition@mander.xyz
- !palaeoecology@mander.xyz
- !palaeontology@mander.xyz
- !photosynthesis@mander.xyz
- !plantid@mander.xyz
- !plants@mander.xyz
- !reptiles and amphibians@mander.xyz
Physical Sciences
- !astronomy@mander.xyz
- !chemistry@mander.xyz
- !earthscience@mander.xyz
- !geography@mander.xyz
- !geospatial@mander.xyz
- !nuclear@mander.xyz
- !physics@mander.xyz
- !quantum-computing@mander.xyz
- !spectroscopy@mander.xyz
Humanities and Social Sciences
Practical and Applied Sciences
- !exercise-and sports-science@mander.xyz
- !gardening@mander.xyz
- !self sufficiency@mander.xyz
- !soilscience@slrpnk.net
- !terrariums@mander.xyz
- !timelapse@mander.xyz
Memes
Miscellaneous
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You put those words in my mouth, I never said I believe that. I've been saying that each person owns their data and have the right to decide what it can be used for.
It's a separate discussion but: that rich people own most of the assets has a lot to do with the fact they steal and use stolen resources to appropriate more resources. It's parasitic and needs to stop.
Fair enough, but that's a really fine point. You can do what you like with your property; use it, make it a gift, destroy it, give it to charity, ... But in daily life of most people, property rights are all about money.
Your ideas demand a massive amount of free money for the likes of Disney. On a societal level, that's basically it. I feel justified in ignoring a few people who have idiosyncratic plans.
ETA:
No. Wealth inequality is an unavoidable part of having property. I can find a simulation for you, if you want.
Inequality is fine as long as it isn't extreme. You can have limits on inequality by implementing rules. In my opinion it's about finding a balance where neither the richest nor the poorest person strays too far from the median, otherwise you start having trouble and move slowly towards an oligarchy that'll end in violence and suffering eventually.
Ok. And how would these rules fare against your convictions on property?
Which convictions on property?
You obviously have strong feelings on intellectual property. What actually are your views on that?
Not sure why you think that but I don't, I have strong feelings on personal privacy.
I believe you're constantly trying to steer the conversation into "you and everyone who opposes unethical AI model training only want data owners to get paid", but it's not how it is. I want to prevent AI corporations from stealing. It's a big difference.
Stealing is something you do with property. It's not something you do with privacy.
So what do you mean by "personal privacy"? Most would consider stuff intentionally made public to be explicitly not private. What actually is the problem?
AI companies are training models on photos and texts posted only for your friends to see in their networks, and worse, also on e-mails, personal images people are backing up, etc. That's private information. It shouldn't be used for training models.
With public information that everyone can see it's from my point of view a gray area. If a magazine takes a public photo and uses it to sell copies, they're stealing from the artist. But if they take that same photo and use it to train and sell an AI model, it's a difficult situation to assess. I think our best approach so far is to respect the author's wishes if they explicitly want to opt out. And yes of course I believe in intellectual property and copyright, if that was your question. They're there for a reason, and they not only benefit big corporations but also small and independent artists and content creators.
Can you give me an example or two of such a model?
Thanks for bringing us back there. That's the classical conservative argument. It's not wrong.
One thing you said earlier was: You can have limits on inequality by implementing rules.
So, how do such reforms stack up against your conservatism?
https://www.theverge.com/meta/694685/meta-ai-camera-roll
Just a recent example. Of course they're vague about what "public" means, but if you really believe they aren't using all the photos, you'd be pretty naive in my eyes.
If that's what you want to call conservative go ahead, although it's not what I'd typically associate with that word. Not sure where you see the problem? What does taxing wealth at increasing rates to decrease inequality have to do with enforcing intellectual property to protect intellectual workers?
Ok. You can't give an actual example, so you use emotional blackmail to discourage disagreement. Noted.
It's called Chesterton's fence.
To cut right to the chase. The problem is your intellectual dishonesty. First, it's privacy, then it's intellectual property, then privacy again. You try the spiel about sticking it to the corporations. When that is debunked, inequality is fine. Now it's about "intellectual workers", as if any of the higher-ups would share the loot.
You don't give a fuck about logic or reason. You're just throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks. You're working through a list of talking points without ever engaging your brain. A third world guy will do that for a dollar an hour.
And don't tell me that you're doing this for free. Doing free labor for billionaires so that billionaires can get some free money from the rest of us is the stupidest thing I ever heard of. Ahh. But I have heard of it.
Did you read the article? They're using your private photos from your camera roll. It is an actual example of what I said. The part I mentioned about public photos was of previously posted photos on Facebook. Please read the article otherwise don't ask for it.
Well, I'm replying to what you're asking and arguing about, as you can tell if you reread our thread. I care about both privacy and intellect property. Shouldn't be that hard to grasp. Also, you've just been asking questions and assuming my point of view without ever stating your own stance. Do you believe it's fine for AI companies to use your personal data and your intellect property to train models they'll profit from without your consent?
If you want to resort to ad hominem we can say good day and move on, that's not the point of discussing things here. At least not for me.