Comment by TeMPOraL

>>>>> I have been tricked into working to contribute training data so that they can profit off my labor.

> Unsarcastically, a lot of people believe user data belongs to users, and that they should have a say in how it's used.

At some point this stops being a fair complaint, though. Most of the AI-related cases IMO are such.

To put it bluntly: expecting to be compensated for anything that can be framed as one's labor is such an extreme level of greed that even Scrooge McDuck would be ashamed of. In fact, trying to capture all value one generates, is at the root of most if not all underhanded or downright immoral business practices in companies both large and small.

The way society works best, is when people stop trying to catch all the value they generate. That surplus is what others can use to contribute to the whole, and then you can use some of their uncaptured value, and so on. That's how symbiotic relationships form; that's how ecosystems work.

> I'm sure I would be in the minority, but I would never have played - or never have done certain things like the research tasks - had I known I was training an AI model.

I have a feeling you wouldn't be in minority here, at least not among people with any kind of view on this.

Still, with AI stuff, anyone's fair share is $0, because that's how much anyone's data is worth on the margin.

It's also deeply ironic that nobody cares when people's data is being used to screw them over directly - such as profiling or targeting ads; but the moment someone figures out how to monetize this data in a way that doesn't screw over the source, suddenly everyone is up in arms, because they aren't getting their "fair share".