this post was submitted on 19 Jul 2026
269 points (88.8% liked)
Technology
86537 readers
3173 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Justification of what? Using the incredible technology created via the shared culmination of all human knowledge, on personally owned hardware, using clean, renewable energy? What needs to be justified in that?
A good amount without their consent yeah. You tried to justify it earlier in the comment chain by saying it's not an exact reproduction and that the cat's already out of the bag, which is what ai bros typically say to cope with that aspect.
You don't need consent to learn from something, yeah? Or do artists need consent to learn by watching their movies? Do authors need consent to learn by reading books? It's machine LEARNING, not machine copying.
Yes, courses and materials coming with terms and conditions for its use is not really a new concept for most reasonable people.
Then, I guess if a course or material owner agrees with your logic, and have a complaint then they should file a lawsuit and let the legal process carry out. In my own judgement, nothing unethical occurred and complaints such as your own are nonsensical. It's like complaining that someone in a painting looks like you, and you know the painter has seen you before, so the painting must therefore be based on a sighting of you in public, and you demand restitution for unwittingly being their inspiration without giving them your consent to inspire them. Arguing that the painter should have contacted you, and sought permission to be inspired by your public appearance.
Yeah, I already got the impression that you didn't give a shit about the consent side from your earlier posts.
Let's say your comment isn't facetious, and you actually believe this is a reasonable thing to request... You believe that the original LLM creators should have contacted each and every person on the Internet, tracked every single poster down, and got them to sign a consent form allowing the information they had already made publicly available to be used to educate a large language model? You believe that is both reasonable and feasible?
It's the same completely reasonable standards we hold for everybody else? I am just as curious as you are. Does the fact that "'not guzzling all the information and media from people who specifically don't want them to' is such a difficult and infeasible proposition that they can't possibly honor it" not set off any alarm bells for you? morally?
No, because the information does not disappear. It is not gone. It is unchanged. The availability is the same before, as after. The number of people with access to the information "guzzled" is unaffected. I don't know how many different ways to say "it doesn't matter" there are.
I got that much. I'm not sure why you were asking whether I was being facetious or not considering that I initially (and correctly) clocked you as not giving a shit about such consent. And going back to the original post, you really don't seem any different from your typical ai bro in your careless attitude towards the art/textbooks/family photos your ai models guzzle up during traning. Why pretend otherwise?
I was asking if you were being facetious because it's such a ridiculous ask. It would be literally impossible. Large swathes of the Internet are completely random, so there would be no way to know who to even contact. Even if it wasn't impossible from that aspect, many of those you'd need to contact won't still be alive, or in a mental state in which they can even give consent. Ignoring both of those challenges, the logistics of contacting everyone and tracking who had and had not responded would be a Herculean effort. It's just a bonkers thing to ask that I had to assume you were just saying shit to rile me up, because the alternative was not flattering to your mental capabilities.
What the hell is a "typical AI bro" and why do you feel the need to use immature nicknames for people? Should I say "you are such a typical AI hoe" to mean the opposite of whatever you mean?
If the art/textbooks/family photos are unchanged, still available, and in no way harmed, why does it even matter? There's literally no way to know if any given image was even used. If they didn't tell you, it would be impossible to know. Asking for consent for something that doesn't change anything and is impossible to discern even happened is laughable. Why would literally anyone care?
It's like saying you need to get consent from someone to think about them.
I would certainly and accurately use this label for the kind people parroting the same "too difficult" excuse as AI lobby groups for one.
Have they (or you) considered that if it's too difficult to do in a way that respects the consent of the people you're taking from, maybe you shouldn't do it? (Rhetorical question of course, I know you already gave such excuses as "the cat's out of the bag", etc).
Clearly the many creators of the work they're taking from care. Do you only respect consent when you happen to agree with their world view?
Stop reading my messages I've put on the Internet. You're not allowed to get any information from them without my consent. It doesn't matter that it's public information as soon as I post it. You don't have my consent. Why are you still reading? You don't have my consent to read this.
See how stupid that is?
If that's what you want man 😅. I think it's a stupid thing to ask but it should be up to you.
That's not the scenario we're complaining about and you know it.
I was talking about using AI as a tool during software development, always have been. You, and others, are determined to turn it into a discussion about the ethics of data centers. You're not discussing the usefulness of AI as a tool to developers, you're instead distorting the conversation to a tangent, blaming me for it, and you know it.
Same as us. I guess. I've only been following our thread between the two of us, so I can't speak for others. But yeah, that's what I've also been talking about?
No, I'm not, because that's not what we disagree on, first of all... 🤷♂️
Yes, second of all, because those are the most pressing and disturbing and important and urgent aspects in all of AI, the ethics. Of course they are, why wouldn't they be. Nothing is as interesting or important as they are. Nothing!
And I'm not blaming you for anything. No need to play a victim. We're having a discussion. 👍 You're okay.