[steno132]

My view is, if you're going to use the service - you should give the data.

It's like using Gmail and expecting them not to train their AI models on your data - how can you expect that when they're giving you a secure, reliable, highly functional email client completely for free?

The digital economy only works if everyone pays their fair share. If you don't want to give your data then you are really harming everyone by slowing down AI development for everyone else.

[klardotsh]

Because we pay for the models.

If I pay you for a service, what implicit right should you have to then continue to profit in perpetuity by storing the data I paid you to process?

If LLMs were free your Gmail analogy might hold up. They aren’t, and so it doesn’t.

AI development can continue with the data folks opt into, or with the data AI companies incessantly scrape with reckless disregard for polite system loads. AI development does not require retaining all user inputs forever.

[mannanj]

However, you didn't actually get what I meant down, so you ended up inadvertently Straw Manning me.

My disinterest is in sharing my intellectual IP. Most people up to now, have never shared this much of their intellectual IP with a company. Name one product through human history before that got this much data and insight into human thinking and now can use your most intimate conversations, ideas and needs for non-training purposes?

You can't even opt out of that! At least for the training data you can opt-out.

[satvikpendem]

Intellectual "property" is not real property. While I disagree with the parent on many things as my comments show, IP is not one of them. Information should be free, for anyone and everyone.

[mannanj]

Another straw man.

"real" property or not. You agree that we have some right to our own outputs, right? Is that not dignity, to say "I want my outputs protected".

Seems like you think that your ideas should be free, as you called it information. How about you back that up with action... please send me all your most intimate, valuable ideas. Oh no, you don't feel comfortable? Then why are you sharing it with companies?

[satvikpendem]

Sure, it's not like ideas are protected anyway even in the current copyright regime. And anyway I share it with companies because they perform some useful service for me, such as chatting with LLMs about said ideas.

[mannanj]

ok got it. I think just because law doesn't recognize something as valuable or worthy of protection, doesn't mean it isn't valuable or worthy of protection. I prefer to aim for the reality and conditions I desire, than accept verbatim what the current reality is even if it's hostile to me and my value.

For example, I think ideas are incredibly valuable as we've discussed. I think theft of them is a norm and then disempowered opinions are conditioned upon the people to make stealing their output easier.

I also share my ideas with companies such as chatting with LLMs but I talk about it because I'm unhappy with it and think I should not forget (and neither should you) that ultimately a valuable asset is being handed to them free. No, actually, I'm paying them for that. And I think that shouldn't be forgotten. When a better alternative is available, or I'm ready, I'm out.

[satvikpendem]

I desire lack of copyright and IP protections for anyone and everyone including corporations, therefore we fundamentally didagree; as the old saying goes, ideas are worthless, execution is everything.

[mannanj]

Apple is a good example of ethical services. They still give you privacy and ownership of your data, you keep your dignity and data. Google is a horrible model for this - it matches the whole thing about unethical, abusive, gaslighting relationships I described.

[satvikpendem]

The same Apple that takes 30% of all transactions? In reality no corporation is in the public interest.

[mannanj]

straw man. I'm talking about data.