It isn't stealing -- the training data WAS STOLEN.
"Technically correct is the best kind of correct." - Futurama
Does that make it "better"? Probably not. But I think it is worth being accurate rather than hyperbolic when discussing these things.
I think you would do well to reconsider what "hyperbolic" means.
Billions of dollars of content were taken without permission, in an attempt to make
trillions in revenue, for which the content creators are apt to receive precisely bupkis. We agree on this, yes?
It may be technically incorrect to call that "theft", but in terms of the
magnitude of the offense, there's no exaggeration going on. Indeed, "theft" seems entirely inadequate for the amount of recompense the content creators are collectively being cheated out of. So, not really hyperbolic at all.
Similarly the issue of water usage -- it is far less than anti-AI folks paint it to be, and not actually that different than most industrial processes (all industrial processes use A LOT of water).
A single large AI data center can use 5 million gallons of water per day - on the order of the use by 10K to 50K people.
When you put that near a town of 10K to 50K people (like, say, my home in the Boston suburbs) you just doubled their water use, without improving the water supply. Unless maybe AI data centers can also make it rain, or are also massive desalination plants?
Moreover, that extra use is expanding to the tune of
trillions of dollars of investment in the next five years. Even if AI data centers aren't using more than other industrial processes, putting that much new use from
any industrial process would strain local resources.
Unfortunately, because there is so much emotion attached to GenAI, folks opposed to it on principal do not often take the time to learn about it.
You may not realize, but here you effectively wrap up all the resistance as "emotional", dismiss it, and shame those who disagree, all in one sentence. While kind of impressive in terms of brevity, I don't think you'll find it
persuasive.
The profit for this isn't going into the pockets of the typical person on the street. That person on the street is more likely to lose their job, or see their utility costs rise, than get a share of the revenue.
When you want people to accept a burden for
someone else's benefit, waggling fingers about being emotional nor not doing the homework you assign may not be the way to go.
