I think yes, because saying 'no' also throws into question whether present you consenting on future you's behalf is moral, which can lead down a path of concluding autonomy itself is immoral.
Meanwhile, if we just say 'yeah, the non-existant future you is allowed to consent to things on past you's behalf', we avoid all that mumbo jumbo. Honestly, it's something people do actually do sometimes, now that I think about it. Forgiveness almost operates in that fashion.
I would disagree. Many other technologies have eliminated more jobs, caused more damage to society and the environment, and been more generally consequential. AI has been bad kn all those ways, but is by no means the worst of them all. Let's not forget that we're still dealing with the social damage and ripple effects of the invention of the atomic bomb, and that previous video and audio manipulation tools had already severely damaged social trust in media. LLMs have just worsened those already significantly damaged systems.
Very ironic use of war propaganda, considering that Microsoft's market model is closer to the colonial powers that usually use this format - and the fact that linux often attracts anarchists due to its open, collaborative design.
Well there's this case where Monsanto sued a farm for replanting seeds they had a patent on.
And there's several other cases similar to that where Monsanto has sued farmers. For instance in "David vs Monsanto", when a farmer found out some canola plants were roundup-resistant and propogated them on his farm. Monsanto sued him for not having them removed, especially since Monsanto had a program where if they were informed, they'd removed them for farmers.
So while it's not exactly as deceived above, it's not far off.
I view that aspect, the motive, as being added specifically to provide a reason for those who haven't acquired empathy yet, Such as many children. If you simply say 'don't bully people for being different' the immediate rebuttal will be 'why not?', and if you don't give some concrete answer, then the lesson will potentially not stick.
These tenets of kindness and goodwill are most powerful and propagateable when concrete, calculated explanations can be provided on top of reasons which rely on empathy, because empathy works for some, but when empathy is lacking logic must suffice.
I think yes, because saying 'no' also throws into question whether present you consenting on future you's behalf is moral, which can lead down a path of concluding autonomy itself is immoral.
Meanwhile, if we just say 'yeah, the non-existant future you is allowed to consent to things on past you's behalf', we avoid all that mumbo jumbo. Honestly, it's something people do actually do sometimes, now that I think about it. Forgiveness almost operates in that fashion.