Comment on Avoiding AI is hard – but our freedom to opt out must be protected

• zeca@lemmy.eco.br ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  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 someone to do something does in fact dictate their lives, so my opinion should be invalid, no?

  source

  • CrayonDevourer@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    No, because you use the uppermost-bound of the statement. Your opinion doesn’t take precident as the opinion above it already violates the rights of others.

    source

    • zeca@lemmy.eco.br ⁨21⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      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 assistent’ 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/affect the user. But thats not as true as it may seem.

      source