Putting up fliers, choosing to be public is vastly, vastly different from using information previously provided under a different pretext for an entirely unwanted and unintended purpose, especially when it is to train digital intelligences that have inherently massive problematic social costs without explicit consent.
Put another way, it’s fine with me if someone wants to use the content that I provided to drive value on a social website.
It’s not OK with me that someone uses the content that I provided to replicate the author of what was written (without permission).
One thing to really understand about artificial intelligence is that it is in someways, essentially a reverse engineering of the person providing the content. I did not authorize a digital twin to be created from the content that I provided. I did not authorize a digital copy of myself, but that is what all of these companies are doing.
A fundamental stripping of the authorship to the point where you can replicate a proxy of the author and not just use the derivatives of that author.
This is a fundamental difference, because no other technology has ever been able to go back up the food chain and replicate the author in a way that allows for not only replication of the content and its relative functions, but a complete photocopying of the ideas and thinking and other mechanisms and patterns of the person that’s creating it.
It’s a profound difference of people have a hard time seeing.n
I gave permission to use the content I provided. I did not give permission for someone to act as me or make a proxy of me based on what I have provided.
I consented for my media to be used, but not me and that’s a huge difference.