What if their use of AI affects me?
Is my opinion invalid when my opinion is that you shouldnt be allowed to pollute a river that I depend on for accessing water? Have you thought about this for more than 2 seconds?
Have you thought about this for more than 2 seconds?
Have YOU? - Your example is clearly them violating the rights of others. This isn’t some paradox point of view or the “got ya!” moment that you think it is.
Your example is clearly them violating the rights of others.
Yes, and its my opinon that they shouldnt be allowed to do so. Not allowing people to do something does in fact dictate their lives, so my opinion should be invalid, no?
No, because you use the uppermost-bound of the statement. Your opinion doesn’t take precident as the opinion above it (polluting the river) already violates the rights of others. Your opinion literally is the same as mine. That the person polluting the river (their opinion being they can) - shouldn’t be able to use that opinion to affect others. You’re saying the same as I am, but focused on the wrong part.
Like with religion – You’re free to believe whatever you want to believe. That you’re not allowed to have abortions, etc.
But the moment YOUR belief, says that I can’t have an abortion, is when it becomes invalid, because it’s not MY belief. I don’t have to abide by YOUR belief/opinion on the matter. Your opinions don’t dictate my actions.
Now, you can control your actions - by, say - not buying from me. You control your actions, so while you can’t force companies not to AI, there’s nothing forcing you to buy from them when you are aware of its use. You can’t stop them from using it because you don’t like it though. Your opinion of it being good/bad, or if they can/should/shouldn’t use it matters absolutely none.
Your principle is “The moment your opinion starts to dictate other people’s lives, it becomes invalid.”
My opinion is “People should be prevented from polluting the rivers.”
You say the opinion isnt dictating anything, that its our right to have clean rivers that dictates the prohibition to polluting rivers. Ok, fair, as far as the legislation isnt based on the opinions of the legislators about what should be allowed and what shouldnt.
If the opinions that “using AI to judge if a suspected murderer is guilty is not good” or “people should be able to disable all ‘AI assistant’ features on their smartphones and not have their data constantly scanned” become popular opinions, legislature may be passed and the consequence will dictate other people’s lives.
I see what you mean though that using AI or not only concerns/affects the user. But thats not as true as it may seem.
Nobody is forcing you to do anything by their use of AI. You don’t have a right to TikTok not having things made with AI because you have the freedom to simply not use TikTok. Just as an example.
My insurance companies push me to speak to Ai before real people. Ai is used to sort and database medical records, in use in many careers to spy on employees, and lie to and manipulate younger generations into militant dumbasses. I didn’t opt-in, and I can’t opt-out unless I use a bullet or this cancer is abolished from the earth.
yep, you sure showed me. i suppose you could have written something like “i know you are, but what am i?” if you only ahd the wit to think of it in time
Oh no, people are assaulting me with their different opinions!
No - you can’t say no. People have a right to use AI in their productions, and your opinion cannot force them to do otherwise.
As with anything - the moment your opinion starts to dictate other people’s lives, it becomes invalid.
What we need is the possibility to protect the content we did created.
Libertarians can fuck right off.
So what counts as dictating my life?
The government prohibiting me from firing my gun in the air, or my neighbor’s falling bullets prohibiting me from leaving my porch?
I’m always suspect of those who assume there is only “freedom to do” and not also “freedom from being done-to”.
They tend to think they will never be on the receiving end of someone else’s “freedom”.
What if their use of AI affects me? Is my opinion invalid when my opinion is that you shouldnt be allowed to pollute a river that I depend on for accessing water? Have you thought about this for more than 2 seconds?
Have YOU? - Your example is clearly them violating the rights of others. This isn’t some paradox point of view or the “got ya!” moment that you think it is.
Yes, and its my opinon that they shouldnt be allowed to do so. Not allowing people to do something does in fact dictate their lives, so my opinion should be invalid, no?
No, because you use the uppermost-bound of the statement. Your opinion doesn’t take precident as the opinion above it (polluting the river) already violates the rights of others. Your opinion literally is the same as mine. That the person polluting the river (their opinion being they can) - shouldn’t be able to use that opinion to affect others. You’re saying the same as I am, but focused on the wrong part.
Like with religion – You’re free to believe whatever you want to believe. That you’re not allowed to have abortions, etc.
But the moment YOUR belief, says that I can’t have an abortion, is when it becomes invalid, because it’s not MY belief. I don’t have to abide by YOUR belief/opinion on the matter. Your opinions don’t dictate my actions.
Now, you can control your actions - by, say - not buying from me. You control your actions, so while you can’t force companies not to AI, there’s nothing forcing you to buy from them when you are aware of its use. You can’t stop them from using it because you don’t like it though. Your opinion of it being good/bad, or if they can/should/shouldn’t use it matters absolutely none.
Lets clarify this.
Your principle is “The moment your opinion starts to dictate other people’s lives, it becomes invalid.”
My opinion is “People should be prevented from polluting the rivers.”
You say the opinion isnt dictating anything, that its our right to have clean rivers that dictates the prohibition to polluting rivers. Ok, fair, as far as the legislation isnt based on the opinions of the legislators about what should be allowed and what shouldnt. If the opinions that “using AI to judge if a suspected murderer is guilty is not good” or “people should be able to disable all ‘AI assistant’ features on their smartphones and not have their data constantly scanned” become popular opinions, legislature may be passed and the consequence will dictate other people’s lives.
I see what you mean though that using AI or not only concerns/affects the user. But thats not as true as it may seem.
They have no right to force me to endure said “
productions” garbage.Nobody is forcing you to do anything by their use of AI. You don’t have a right to TikTok not having things made with AI because you have the freedom to simply not use TikTok. Just as an example.
They are, tho.
My insurance companies push me to speak to Ai before real people. Ai is used to sort and database medical records, in use in many careers to spy on employees, and lie to and manipulate younger generations into militant dumbasses. I didn’t opt-in, and I can’t opt-out unless I use a bullet or this cancer is abolished from the earth.
Re-read your post and try to pinpoint where you contradict yourself. If you are unable to do so, you could ask chat gpt for help.
Is that because you can’t pinpoint it yourself? There’s a reason that you can’t. It’s because no contradiction exists.
Lol
Yeah, that’s what I thought.
yep, you sure showed me. i suppose you could have written something like “i know you are, but what am i?” if you only ahd the wit to think of it in time