Let’s talk about GitHub copilot. It’s fair the complain that they were only able to build this tool based on analysis of user submitted code. But this is an argument for data transparency and better laws governing what entities and companies can do with user submitted data and information. Because until now, this is the least gross thing done with this business model. 👇🏽:
1. Do I need to mention Henrietta lacks? How her cancer cells were taken at hospital and then turned into the HeLa line of cells used for research that made thermo fisher scientific billions?
If you these examples outrageous, what you need to fight for is data consent, data transparency, the right to data deletion and withdrawal of consent, and better laws on what companies can do with intellectual property, data or other information that’s been submitted by people.
People have had to fight biotech companies that have *patented their DNA*.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02905-9
Regulating companies is what you need.
Also, as a reminder with regards to the above regarding data privacy: row vs Wade was first and foremost about the right to privacy. Anything related to reproductive rights was only a result of the right of a woman, based on this result, to have her martial status private.
So, whatever your gender, political beliefs, sexuality, this will effect you.
We have this narrative that universal basic income is gonna make people lazy and robot tax is going to increase the cost of living.
But the cost of living is already insane, and our “just be a programmer” line of avoiding having your job replaced self driving cars or machines is clearly not bulletproof.
If you can train ai to write code, you can train it law, etc.
Companies need to answer for how their cost cutting will impact employment, and pay for that impact.
2. Did you know that Lakota elders are having to sue an entity called the Lakota Language Consortium for access to recordings and data they freely gave them ? https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/native-american-language-preservation-rcna31396
This entity posed as a cultural preservation charity but then charged them for access to their own culture, including recordings of their own relatives that were only given under the promise that this would be to help preserve their culture- not create a product they would be charged for later.