• fxdave@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    3 hours ago

    The problem is not the tool. It’s the inability to use the tool without a third party provider.

  • snooggums@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    75
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    9 hours ago

    I disagree with the base premise that being opt out needs to be a right. That implies that having data be harvested for companies to make profits should be the default.

    We should have the right to not have our data harvested by default. Requiring companies to have an opt in process with no coercion or other methods of making people feel obligated to opt in is our right.

    • ItsComplicated@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      ·
      9 hours ago

      being opt out needs to be a right. That implies that having data be harvested for companies to make profits should be the default.

      As the years have passed, it has become the acceptable consensus for all of your personal information, thoughts, and opinions, to become freely available to anyone, at anytime, for any reason in order for companies to profit from it.

      People keep believing this is normal and companies keep taking more. Unless everyone is willing to stand firm and say enough, I only see it declining further, unfortunately.

    • taladar@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      6 hours ago

      We should have the right to not have our data harvested by default.

      I would maybe not go quite that far but at the very least this should apply to commercial interests and living people.

      I think there are some causes where it should be acceptable to have your data usable by default, e.g. statistical analysis of health threats (think those studies about the danger of living near a coal power plant or similar things).

      • snooggums@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 hours ago

        That implies that having data be harvested for companies to make profits should be the default.

        I sure hope those studies are not being done by for profit companies!

    • General_Effort@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      7 hours ago

      We should have the right to not have our data harvested by default.

      How would that benefit the average person?

          • sunzu2@thebrainbin.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 hours ago

            I don’t expect… It is already happening. Prime example are rents and wages.

            There is nothing to be done about it. Too late

            Dynamic pricing is a more current battle ground.

            All of these are fixed based on cohort specific information and with dynamic pricing it can be literally individual level data.

            • General_Effort@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              4 hours ago

              The question was how “less price gouging” would result from a right not to have “your data harvested by default”.

              • sunzu2@thebrainbin.org
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                4 hours ago

                By denying corpos data, their models are less effective especially if you are salting it when ever possible.

                Do you really need Faceerh and Sundar the creep to have access to your tax returns and locations? Also, do you need them to know you like Asian women with large tits? Or that you and your friends enjoy a hobby?

                • General_Effort@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  32 minutes ago

                  Doesn’t that seem awfully roundabout? You make the practice less effective at the price of also making beneficial uses of the data, eg for medical research, less effective.

                  The mega-rich can see my tax returns if I can see theirs. The data of the rich and famous is much more valuable than mine. Let’s not pretend that this helps the little guy. The little guy doesn’t throw around money to get their flight data removed from Twitter.

      • snooggums@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 hours ago

        Send me your name, birthdate, web browsing history, online spending history, real time location, and a list of people you know and I will explain it to you.

    • But_my_mom_says_im_cool@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      8 hours ago

      You got downvoted because Lemmy users like knee jerk reactions and think that you can unmake a technology or idea. You can’t, Ai is here and it’s forever now. Best we can do is find ways to live with it and like you said, reward those who use it ethically. The Lemmy idea that Ai should be banned and not used is so unrealistic

      • atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        4 hours ago

        You seem to misunderstand the ire;

        AI in its current state has existed for over a decade. Watson used ML algorithms to beat Jeopardy by answering natural language questions in 2011. But techbros have gotten ahold of it and decided that copyright rules don’t apply to them and now the cat is out of the bag?!? From the outside it looks like bootlicking for the same bullshit that told us we would be using blockchain to process mortgages in 10 years… 10 years ago. AI isn’t just here to stay it’s been here for 70 years.

        • ClamDrinker@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          14 minutes ago

          ML technology has existed for a while, but it’s wild to claim that the technology pre-2020 is the same. A breakthrough happened.

  • Oxysis/Oxy@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    9 hours ago

    Is it really though? I haven’t touched it since the very early days of slop ai. That was before I learned of how awful it is to real people

    • But_my_mom_says_im_cool@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      8 hours ago

      They don’t mean directly, i guarantee that companies, service providers, etc that you are with do indeed use Ai. That’s what I took the headline to mean. Some facet of everyone’s life uses Ai now