Google’s Request for Consent: Too Little, Too Late?

In recent years, concerns about data privacy and consent have become increasingly prominent. Companies like Google have faced scrutiny for their practices, particularly when it comes to collecting data without users’ knowledge or explicit consent. As the discussion around ethical data collection continues to evolve, Google’s latest attempt to address these concerns has left many questioning the authenticity of their intentions.

The Unseen Collection

Large language models, such as Google’s Bard AI, are powered by vast amounts of data. However, much of this data appears to have been collected without anyone’s knowledge or consent. This revelation has sparked a growing debate regarding the ethics of using personal data without explicit permission.

In a blog post by Danielle Romain, Google’s vice president of trust, the company acknowledges the need for greater choice and control for web publishers over how their content is used for emerging generative AI use cases. However, the fact remains that this consent is being sought after the fact, rather than being obtained proactively. This raises questions about the sincerity and authenticity of Google’s commitment to ethical data collection.

Questionable Consent

While Google claims to develop its AI in an ethical and inclusive manner, one cannot ignore the stark contrast between web indexing and AI training use cases. The company emphasizes the importance of consent but fails to address the reality that its models have already been trained on user data collected without explicit permission.

In an attempt to engage web publishers and gain their consent, Google presents their request as an opportunity to contribute to the improvement of their AI models. The use of language such as “help improve Bard and Vertex’s generative AI APIs” creates an impression that cooperation is not only beneficial but also morally right. However, it is important to recognize that consent should be sought prior to utilizing personal data, rather than requesting it as an afterthought.

Furthermore, the blog post conveniently avoids using the word “train” when referring to the use of data for machine learning models. This omission undermines the transparency and authenticity of Google’s message, as it fails to explicitly state the true purpose of collecting personal data.

A Matter of Trust

The trust between Google and its users has been eroded by its approach to data collection and consent. By exploiting unlimited access to web data without prior permission, Google has given the impression that consent and ethical data collection are not its top priorities. If these values were, in fact, integral to the company’s operations, this request for consent would have been established years ago.

Medium, a widely recognized online publishing platform, recently announced its intention to block AI crawlers until a more comprehensive solution is developed. This decision highlights the growing consensus among web publishers that greater measures are needed to protect user data and privacy. Google’s belated request for consent appears to be a reaction to this shift in public opinion rather than a genuine commitment to ethical practices.

The Way Forward

In order to regain the trust of web publishers and users alike, Google must prioritize transparency and informed consent from the outset. This means obtaining explicit permission before utilizing personal data and being transparent about the purpose and scope of data collection.

Additionally, establishing clearer guidelines and regulations surrounding AI training data is crucial. Companies like Google should be held accountable to ensure that personal data is obtained ethically and used responsibly. This includes implementing measures to protect user privacy and providing individuals with greater control over how their data is used.

An Engaging Perspective

While the debate surrounding data privacy and consent may seem daunting, it is important for individuals to understand their rights and advocate for responsible data collection practices. By being informed and actively participating in discussions about data privacy, individuals can help shape the future of ethical AI development.

Furthermore, organizations must recognize that ethical data collection and consent are not merely checkboxes to be filled. Building trust with users requires a commitment to transparency, accountability, and ongoing dialogue. Only through open and honest communication can companies like Google begin to repair the damage caused by their past actions.

Summary

In Google’s recent blog post, the company acknowledges the need for greater choice and control over the use of web content in its AI training models. However, the belated nature of this request raises doubts about the authenticity of Google’s commitment to ethical data collection. By exploiting unlimited access to web data without prior consent, Google’s actions suggest that consent and ethical data collection are not its top priorities. To restore trust, Google must prioritize transparency, informed consent, and greater accountability for ethical data collection practices. Only through these measures can the company begin to rebuild its reputation in the realm of data privacy and consent.

Large language models are trained with all kinds of data, most of which appears to have been collected without anyone’s knowledge or consent. Now you have a choice whether to allow Google to use your web content as material to power its Bard AI and any future models it decides to create.

It’s as simple as turning off “User-Agent: Google-Extended” in your site’s robots.txt file, the document that tells automated web crawlers what content they can access.

Although Google claims to develop its AI in an ethical and inclusive manner, the use case for AI training is significantly different than web indexing.

“We’ve also heard from web publishers who want greater choice and control over how their content is used for emerging generative AI use cases,” writes the company’s vice president of trust, Danielle Romain, in a blog post, as if this came as a surprise.

Curiously, the word “train” does not appear in the post, although it is very clear what this data is used for: as raw material to train machine learning models.

Instead, the trusted VP asks if you don’t really want to “help improve Bard and Vertex’s generative AI APIs,” “help make these AI models more accurate and capable over time.”

Look, it’s not about Google. taking something about you It’s about whether you are wanting to help.

On the one hand, that’s perhaps the best way to present this question, since consent is an important part of this equation and a positive choice to contribute is exactly what Google should ask for. On the other hand, the fact that Bard and his other models have already having been trained with truly enormous amounts of data curated from users without their consent takes away all authenticity from this framework.

The inescapable truth from Google’s actions is that it exploited unlimited access to web data, got what it needed, and is now asking permission after the fact to make it appear that consent and ethical data collection are a priority. for them. If it were, we would have had this setup years ago.

Casually, Medium just announced today which would block trackers like this universally until there is a better, more granular solution. And they are not the only ones, far from it.