• Shinji_Ikari [he/him]
    hexbear
    26
    10 months ago

    If the results were also open and public, it'd be a different conversation.

    This is more akin to rain water collection up-hill and selling it back to the people downhill. It's privatization of a public resource.

    • @little_water_bear@discuss.tchncs.de
      hexbear
      4
      10 months ago

      This comparison is lacking because water is unlike data. The data can still be accessed exactly the same. It doesn't become less and the access to it is not restricted by other people harvesting it.

      • @mim@lemmy.sdf.org
        hexbear
        13
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        While that is true, it does divert peoples' clicks.

        Imagine you wrote a quality tech tutorial blog. Is it ok for OpenAI to take your content, train their models, and divert your previous readers away from your blog?

        It's an open ethical question that it's not straightforward to answer.

        EDIT: yes people also learn things and repost them. But the scale at which ChatGPT operates is unprecedented. We should probably let policy catch up. Otherwise we'll end up with the mess we currently have by letting Google and Facebook collect data for years without restrictions.

      • Shinji_Ikari [he/him]
        hexbear
        3
        10 months ago

        it's not a great comparison I'll admit, but it's essentially the same as digital privacy, only one of these is protected in courts and the other is encouraged.

        I haven't sat down to really build a stance on this but it does not sit well.