Source: https://front-end.social/@fox/110846484782705013

Text in the screenshot from Grammarly says:

We develop data sets to train our algorithms so that we can improve the services we provide to customers like you. We have devoted significant time and resources to developing methods to ensure that these data sets are anonymized and de-identified.

To develop these data sets, we sample snippets of text at random, disassociate them from a user’s account, and then use a variety of different methods to strip the text of identifying information (such as identifiers, contact details, addresses, etc.). Only then do we use the snippets to train our algorithms-and the original text is deleted. In other words, we don’t store any text in a manner that can be associated with your account or used to identify you or anyone else.

We currently offer a feature that permits customers to opt out of this use for Grammarly Business teams of 500 users or more. Please let me know if you might be interested in a license of this size, and I’II forward your request to the corresponding team.

  • arglebargleEnglish
    1·
    11 months ago

    By the way theft implies something taken. I responded by saying tech takes away jobs all the time. You suggested that providing services based on publicly available data is some how stealing is absurd. Nothing was taken away. So I tried to relate it to jobs. You said the commons are effected. Yet they are not, as nothing it taken away. You said that coroporations are the bad ones, but local instances are not - so I can run my own instances and do not use the corporate ones, so what was taken?

    I just do not understand this as theft. It is absurd.

    • bloodfart@lemmy.ml
      1·
      11 months ago

      Hey I’m not gonna do two comment threads with you when you wont even stick to the one we have going. If you wanna stick with this one, reply to this comment and let the other one go. I’ll post this preface in my response to your other comment too.

      I explained in detail how AI (in almost every case parenthetically explaining like this that I’m not talking about matrix mathematics, but a complex set of interlocking technologies mobilized by powerful companies to profit off of public work) affects our commons.

      I also explained how the formal western legal holding of the word theft isn’t useful in this case, but in lieu of a word that has more pertinence, the widely used vernacular of theft is perfectly fine.

      Now I need you to recognize that in light of those explanations, being precious about the words particular meaning instead of talking about the actual problem at hand amounts to deploying pedantry to avoid weighing in on the dispute.

      So maybe let’s start from the start: what do you think should be done in light of the effect that AI (long explanation that I’m not talking about matrix mathematics here) is having?