time to strike up the "information wants to be free" band.
As it turns out this desire for isn't particularly unique to information, and the above phrase is actually nothing more than a bad pun which turns on two different senses of the word 'free' as used in English.
no. it's people that want information to be free. but such people also don't want to be seen as demanding or needy or poor or advocates for thieves, so they rhetorically project that desire onto an abstract object that is incapable of wanting anything at all.
Yes, people want to have a say in what is done with their data, whether it is public or not. The urge increases the less overlap is between people's goals and the use of their data. If you use public data against the will of the majority, pressure increases. I think this can be framed under the following: While it is possible to do many things with data, some things just shouldn't be done. There's a middle ground in the continuum where things are ambiguous. Neural nets can do many things, which is why many feel that they should not be allowed to be trained on any public data. I think I disagree. We should focus on the use cases, not the training step.
I never took that phrase as humans making a desire statement, but as a physical inevitability of representing information as electrons. In the way that voltage 'wants' to jump a gap, information 'wants' to be free.
EDIT, just because I don't get to share it very often, here's tom waits with some more examples of desire.
The cradle wants a baby-
Kitchen wants a pan -
A heart wants a certain kind of lover if it can
The ocean wants a sailor -
The gun wants a hand -
The money wants a spender and 'road wants a man
The Devil wants a sinner -
The sky wants a bird -
The table wants the dinner and the Lips want a word
The glass wants the wine -
A fist wants to hurt -
A clock wants the time and the shovel wants to work
Coal wants a miner -
Soldier takes a stand -
The walls of the prison want a solitary man
The window wants a curtain -
The plow wants the land -
Diamond ring wants to fit upon the finger of her hand
If I make some information public, I am expecting people to read it, and to store it in their memories, and to use it to make new creations and insights.
If it's okay for a human to do that, why is it suddenly not okay for a computer program?
While I generally agree with you I'll try to be a Devils Advocate - albeit probably poorly.
Responding to your question, I'd say the problem is scale.
Once trained, these cognitive automation machines can spray text/images in the style of XYZ. Having artifacts in the output doesn't make that scenario better.
A person's very essence of their output is diluted. Naturally such people will be afraid for their worth to society and how they are rewarded.
The only ones having this power - to spider the internet, train computers and apply them to large numbers of interactions with people - are large corporations and nation states.
That is a significant power to have, and not everyone is sure who should have it and are afraid what could be done with it.
There will be much debate. I think the debate won't really influence the outcome much.
Edit: spent the time to try to write a shorter comment. Done now. I think.
This is grandstanding, there's no way to enforce how people or machines dispose with the data you put on the Internet. No enforcement mechanism, no chain of responsibility. It's literally FREE data. And this extends to photographs, drawings, music, code, prose, poetry, and all of the human generated content which IS being used by everybody from search engines (Google never asks permission) to AI companies, to cyber criminals and overreaching security theater weirdos in government. All of them can do whatever they like with whatever they find.
Don't like it? Don't put your data on the Internet, or use a mobile device near a conversation you'd rather keep private. No amount of regulation will ever stop any of this.
6 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 23.9 ms ] threadAs it turns out this desire for isn't particularly unique to information, and the above phrase is actually nothing more than a bad pun which turns on two different senses of the word 'free' as used in English.
no. it's people that want information to be free. but such people also don't want to be seen as demanding or needy or poor or advocates for thieves, so they rhetorically project that desire onto an abstract object that is incapable of wanting anything at all.
EDIT, just because I don't get to share it very often, here's tom waits with some more examples of desire.
The cradle wants a baby- Kitchen wants a pan - A heart wants a certain kind of lover if it can
The ocean wants a sailor - The gun wants a hand - The money wants a spender and 'road wants a man
The Devil wants a sinner - The sky wants a bird - The table wants the dinner and the Lips want a word
The glass wants the wine - A fist wants to hurt - A clock wants the time and the shovel wants to work
Coal wants a miner - Soldier takes a stand - The walls of the prison want a solitary man
The window wants a curtain - The plow wants the land - Diamond ring wants to fit upon the finger of her hand
If I make some information public, I am expecting people to read it, and to store it in their memories, and to use it to make new creations and insights.
If it's okay for a human to do that, why is it suddenly not okay for a computer program?
Responding to your question, I'd say the problem is scale.
Once trained, these cognitive automation machines can spray text/images in the style of XYZ. Having artifacts in the output doesn't make that scenario better.
A person's very essence of their output is diluted. Naturally such people will be afraid for their worth to society and how they are rewarded.
The only ones having this power - to spider the internet, train computers and apply them to large numbers of interactions with people - are large corporations and nation states.
That is a significant power to have, and not everyone is sure who should have it and are afraid what could be done with it.
There will be much debate. I think the debate won't really influence the outcome much.
Edit: spent the time to try to write a shorter comment. Done now. I think.
Don't like it? Don't put your data on the Internet, or use a mobile device near a conversation you'd rather keep private. No amount of regulation will ever stop any of this.