Everyone who thinks this is legitimately bad. I ask, what do you think of AI art data sets? Sometimes, to make something new you have to have mass amount of data to start with.
I think people who paid to have a service, checked a box for their sample to be used for research, and the research is to cure disease, have significantly lower reason to be upset than an artist who used Twitter to upload their work and had said work used as a data set to train a product that will try to make their career even MORE financially immposible.
Boohoo. You signed up for a good cause. Get over it.
Here’s the difference, an artist can make more art. You cannot change your DNA. If someone steals some of your art it’s not the end of the world. You can make more. If someone has your DNA, you can’t change it. Once its out there that’s it. More over having someone’s DNA can give you significant insight into into just the person whose DNA you have but also their parents and their children.
Once its out there that’s it.
But the subject put it out themslevss. More over, they paid for it be used. No one was tricked, captured or coerced in to giving their DNA.
As opposed to an artist who is promoting themselves and their craft, used without their knowledge to replicate their work.
By biological father was an anonymous sperm donor before the technology to sequence a person’s DNA for under 10 billion dollars was a thing. They did not give their DNA to ancestry. Their sister did, having no clue that her brother had donated. Yet ancestry has matched her to several nieces and nephews, outing her brother’s history to his sister and the children who were never supposed to have access to that info. It’s not just your own information.
Similarly, one of my half siblings suddenly found out that his dad wasn’t his birth dad.
Anyways, he happens to be cool with the fact that he suddenly had contact with offspring who weren’t supposed to know who he was.
But our DNA is interconnected. It doesn’t just belong to one person.
I mostly agree, except both my parents did it so they more or less have my DNA without my consent. They sure might not have the exact combination that I received from them but it’s more than I’m comfortable with.
23andme requires you to agree to what they ask, which is far more than what Johns Hopkins did for Henrietta Lacks.
There’s a big difference between a person’s DNA and a person’s art. DNA is the principle part of someone’s biometric identity, which can be used to reveal an enormous amount of information about a person. Hence it is not unreasonable to expect that its usage will be handled in a careful and clearly defined manner. Most countries have very strict laws on biometric data for a reason.
The same can not be said for a piece of art. While an an artwork will often convey aspects of the artist’s personality, and can conform to an identifiable style, it would provide no where near the level of insight into a persons physical identity as a DNA sample.
It also seems a stretch to conflate sharing something privately and publishing something publicly. The former will have expectations of privacy and control, regardless of whatever is stated any legalese incomprehensible to the average person. The latter however assumes a loss of control, to share something publicly is in some ways to cede it to the public.
