I don't necessarily disagree with your overall point (I don't know much about it either way), but I'm not sure your example does a great job illustrating it. If you tried the same thing, but with non-high-profile names, would it give you the same response? If so, the charitable (and probably correct) interpretation is that this is a general privacy guardrail, not one that's there to protect the powerful/rich.
> If so, the charitable (and probably correct) interpretation is that this is a general privacy guardrail, not one that's there to protect the powerful/rich
Considering that some of the champions behind machine learning, like Google, are companies that made a living out of violating your privacy just to serve more ads to your eyeballs.. I wouldn't be so charitable.
Tech bros have an inherent disregard for the privacy of others or for author rights for that matter. Was anyone asked if their art could be used to train their replacement?
