Editor-DN
The world of AI is in full revolution and big companies just want to gather material to improve and improve their artificial intelligence. The problem is that users are already tired of seeing how AI is trained with our content. And some have said enough. or, for that matter, Goodbye Meta AI.
Subscribe to the Softonic newsletter and get the latest tech, gaming, entertainment and deals delivered to your inbox.
Experts point out that the message, which has been shared by many users, including celebrities, offers no copyright or privacy protection.
It has been shared by actors and sports stars (such as James McAvoy, Ashley Tisdale, and Tom Brady) and millions of others. But, does it really matter?
Why do people post this on their social media?
Meta, the parent company of three platforms, has announced that it will go ahead with its controversial plans to use millions of Facebook and Instagram posts in the UK to train its artificial intelligence (AI) technology, a This is a practice that violates EU privacy laws.
Sharing the story with “Goodbye Meta AI,” Meta said Does not count as a valid form of object., Just like the previous legal tests shared by users from time to time in recent years did not provide them with the copyright or privacy protection they expected.
Where does this reactionary movement come from?
According to Meta-affiliated fact-checking site Lead Stories, the latest iteration comes from a hoax published on September 1st.
“Goodbye, Meta AI. I order you to stay away from my personal information and photos and any private information of mine. A lawyer has advised us to publish it otherwise there may be legal consequences. Since Meta is now a public entity, all members must post the same statement. If you do not post it at least once, it is assumed that you consent to the use of your personal information and photos. I don’t give you permission to use any of my data or photos,” she said.
In more general terms, Snopes reports that this type of post dates back to the early 2000s, when some websites began citing “Code 431.322.12 of the Internet Privacy Act.” Apparently, their owners thought they could protect themselves from the legal consequences of their online actions by using a fictitious law.
The journalist specializes in technology, entertainment and video games. Writing about what I’m passionate about (gadgets, games and movies) allows me to stay sane and wake up with a smile on my face when the alarm clock goes off. PS: This is not true 100% of the time.
