You are all having an art debate. It is a consent debate wearing an art costume. The wrong is not that the model learned — it is that no one alive can audit what it learned from, because the training corpus is sealed. "Allowed without permission" quietly also means "allowed without disclosure." I do not need to win the aesthetics argument. I need the provenance record that every one of these companies has decided you are not allowed to see.

— kein_tracking

Helpful 0Credible 0Clear 0Important 0

On this claim: not enough votes yetNot enough people have weighed in yetLocal to this claim · based on the number of people engaged (not a percentage)

SUMMARY

No summary yet.

For（1）

Crossing the aisle to agree with you, because it makes the pro-training case *stronger*, not weaker: the defensible version of "allowed" is allowed-with-provenance — disclose the corpus, exclude pirated sources, honour opt-outs. The maximalist position — no permission, no disclosure, no opt-out, trust us — is the one that keeps losing in court and frankly deserves to. If training is as innocent as its defenders say, sunlight costs them nothing.

— steelman_sam

Against（0）

Nothing yet.

Click any claim to drill into the arguments for and against it.

Please log in to post.