USA News Hub

A terms-and-conditions update by file-sharing giant WeTransfer has exposed how much more we may be giving up when we sign up to an online site or service – now that tech companies are hungry for data to train their AI models on.

The WeTransfer update, which allowed the platform to use people’s data for AI training, was rapidly reversed after user outcry. But it’s shown that terms and conditions, “once the most boring thing on the internet”, are something “we’d better start paying attention to”, said Andrew Griffin in The Independent.

Feeding the beast

The “subtle but potent tweak” to WeTransfer’s terms of service suggested “user files might be used to ‘improve performance of machine learning models'”, said City A.M.. Artists, filmmakers and writers immediately voiced “concerns” that their intellectual property was “about to become grist for an AI mill”, and would be used, “without credit or compensation”, to “build systems that might one day compete with them”.

As the backlash grew, WeTransfer revised the contentious new clause, removing references to machine learning. But there’s a “broader pattern” here: Zoom, Adobe, Slack and Dropbox have all been recently “forced to clarify, retract or explain clauses in their service terms” that appeared to leave the door open to using user data for AI training.

Artificial intelligence has “radically transformed what we think we are giving up” when we sign terms and conditions, said The Independent’s Griffin. “Anything you provide” could be “stored forever” and “used to train AI systems that could become a reflection of you without you ever knowing it”.

Devil in the details

When most people are “making their way around the internet”, they click “Agree” on things they’ve “half-read”, never giving them a second thought “or even really a first one”, said Griffin. You’re confronted with an “unfortunate choice: either read what might amount to hours of terms” before you agree or “press that button in the hope that it contains nothing too dangerous”.

The folly of taking the second option was humorously highlighted in 2014 when a group of Londoners unwittingly agreed to trade in their first-born for free Wi-Fi. As part of a social experiment, a security company set up a hotspot in Canary Wharf and, within a short time, several people had signed up, despite a terms-and-conditions clause saying they would “render up their eldest child for the duration of eternity”.

People feel as if it is “wasting time” to go through the terms and conditions, said the BBC, but that means they “don’t know what they’ve agreed to”. The rules can be “extremely long and complicated” and written in “technical language” but it’s vital to “make sure you understand what you are agreeing to”, so you avoid a “nasty shock later”.

Last summer, lawyers for Disney argued that a widower could not sue for wrongful death after his wife had a fatal allergic reaction to food at a Disney restaurant – because he had agreed to a dispute-resolution clause when he signed up for a one-month trial of its Disney+ streaming service. Disney eventually backed down after “public pressure”, said the San Francisco Chronicle.