this post was submitted on 10 Nov 2023
433 points (94.8% liked)
Technology
59204 readers
3911 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
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.
Happier version of your story:
My dad an I both did 23 and Me. He made sure I knew he had done sperm donation before I met my mother just in case something came up. Well, it did! I have two half siblings from his donations! I think it’s cool, and I think he’s happy to know he helped two families have a child.
I have a lot of half-siblings. One set of two, one set of 3 (I've only met the oldest), one only child, there's me and my two full siblings, and the donor's actual child. There's more out there. Another we matched with their child, but I don't think we even know their name. Been pretty cool meeting all of them and the donor. Its actually been a happy experience, but one certain people had no choice in making.
It's interconnected, sure, but I think you'd have an uphill battle that it doesn't belong to that 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.
Though the amount of possible permutations combined with epigenetic triggers you've activated makes it practically impossible to guess which combination you have.
Yes but it makes it significantly easier to guess
Or can you?
It's basically just a matter of time and legislation.
That sounds like a lot of work. Some high dose radiation will get the job done much faster.
23andme requires you to agree to what they ask, which is far more than what Johns Hopkins did for Henrietta Lacks.
Informed consent laws were around well before The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks came out. I think there were earlier publicized examples of subject mistreatment (like Tuskegee) that already pushed the field to be better.
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.