No, because you use the uppermost-bound of the statement. Your opinion doesn’t take precident as the opinion above it (polluting the river) already violates the rights of others. Your opinion literally is the same as mine. That the person polluting the river (their opinion being they can) - shouldn’t be able to use that opinion to affect others. You’re saying the same as I am, but focused on the wrong part.
Like with religion – You’re free to believe whatever you want to believe. That you’re not allowed to have abortions, etc.
But the moment YOUR belief, says that I can’t have an abortion, is when it becomes invalid, because it’s not MY belief. I don’t have to abide by YOUR belief/opinion on the matter. Your opinions don’t dictate my actions.
Now, you can control your actions - by, say - not buying from me. You control your actions, so while you can’t force companies not to AI, there’s nothing forcing you to buy from them when you are aware of its use. You can’t stop them from using it because you don’t like it though. Your opinion of it being good/bad, or if they can/should/shouldn’t use it matters absolutely none.
Your principle is “The moment your opinion starts to dictate other people’s lives, it becomes invalid.”
My opinion is “People should be prevented from polluting the rivers.”
You say the opinion isnt dictating anything, that its our right to have clean rivers that dictates the prohibition to polluting rivers. Ok, fair, as far as the legislation isnt based on the opinions of the legislators about what should be allowed and what shouldnt.
If the opinions that “using AI to judge if a suspected murderer is guilty is not good” or “people should be able to disable all ‘AI assistant’ features on their smartphones and not have their data constantly scanned” become popular opinions, legislature may be passed and the consequence will dictate other people’s lives.
I see what you mean though that using AI or not only concerns/affects the user. But thats not as true as it may seem.
No, because you use the uppermost-bound of the statement. Your opinion doesn’t take precident as the opinion above it (polluting the river) already violates the rights of others. Your opinion literally is the same as mine. That the person polluting the river (their opinion being they can) - shouldn’t be able to use that opinion to affect others. You’re saying the same as I am, but focused on the wrong part.
Like with religion – You’re free to believe whatever you want to believe. That you’re not allowed to have abortions, etc.
But the moment YOUR belief, says that I can’t have an abortion, is when it becomes invalid, because it’s not MY belief. I don’t have to abide by YOUR belief/opinion on the matter. Your opinions don’t dictate my actions.
Now, you can control your actions - by, say - not buying from me. You control your actions, so while you can’t force companies not to AI, there’s nothing forcing you to buy from them when you are aware of its use. You can’t stop them from using it because you don’t like it though. Your opinion of it being good/bad, or if they can/should/shouldn’t use it matters absolutely none.
Lets clarify this.
Your principle is “The moment your opinion starts to dictate other people’s lives, it becomes invalid.”
My opinion is “People should be prevented from polluting the rivers.”
You say the opinion isnt dictating anything, that its our right to have clean rivers that dictates the prohibition to polluting rivers. Ok, fair, as far as the legislation isnt based on the opinions of the legislators about what should be allowed and what shouldnt. If the opinions that “using AI to judge if a suspected murderer is guilty is not good” or “people should be able to disable all ‘AI assistant’ features on their smartphones and not have their data constantly scanned” become popular opinions, legislature may be passed and the consequence will dictate other people’s lives.
I see what you mean though that using AI or not only concerns/affects the user. But thats not as true as it may seem.