It would be a win-win if the company promised that they'll keep the AI as it is, and as free as it is, as long as the company functions. Then they would take something, give something, and we could discuss if what we get outweighs what they took.
But the street is one-way, and it's the company that has the upper hand. The company can (and does) retract access to the AI, but they themselves keep what they took. If in the meantime people became attached to what the company gave, the company even does damage to them, not just by taking away the access, but because of severing the supply for a dependency.
So the people are taken advantage of because the company took the assets, they are taken advantage of because they help to further train the AI by using it, and then they get, at most, the privilege to pay for something that grew out of them.
That's why it's not a win-win. It's a win for the company, and a questionable outcome, and a risk for the people.
I agree wrt/ experience, but I don't think it applies to this situation. Even if you had an experience that would end, their ownership of the data wouldn't, and that, among other things, make this very one-sided.
I do want to stress something from your conclusion though. That people do better if they anticipate change, and can adapt to it.
Whether it's one-sided depends on what you think you've gained and lost. I publish code for free (open source) and I publish my writing for free (on my blog and as comments on various websites).
I don't expect compensation from anyone who uses them, whether it's public or private use, so I don't feel like I've lost anything. Sometimes people "pay it forward." If I actually get something back, that's a win.
There are web search engines and AI chatbots that might be very slightly better (unmeasurably so) due to having been trained on stuff I published over the years. Meanwhile I get a lot of benefit from using free stuff on the Internet. I think that's a one-sided deal in my favor.
(I also pay for GPT4 access. Whether it's worth $20 a month is more questionable, but it's fun to play with and so far I'm interested enough that I haven't cancelled.)
>Whether it's one-sided depends on what you think you've gained and lost.
I completely agree. At the end of the day, winning and losing in this situation cannot be measured, especially the "losing" part wrt/ people, so it all boils down to how the individuals perceive it. (Which is of course why powerful entities put so much effort into PR.)
I personally feel better if there are some safeguards around usage, and so I like licenses like the GPL family, where regulations are in place so that the effort is not completely trivially closed up.
But really, at the end of the day what we can control best is our perception of thing. Life is what we make of it.
But the street is one-way, and it's the company that has the upper hand. The company can (and does) retract access to the AI, but they themselves keep what they took. If in the meantime people became attached to what the company gave, the company even does damage to them, not just by taking away the access, but because of severing the supply for a dependency.
So the people are taken advantage of because the company took the assets, they are taken advantage of because they help to further train the AI by using it, and then they get, at most, the privilege to pay for something that grew out of them.
That's why it's not a win-win. It's a win for the company, and a questionable outcome, and a risk for the people.