The conclusion you’re drawing from “data rights” is still too narrow. A library is also open to everyone the crucial difference is that its contents are verifiable and stable, and can’t be quietly rewritten after the fact without anyone noticing.
With LLMs, the central issue isn’t only training data it’s control over the output: system/persona prompts, filters, ranking mechanisms, and operator policies can steer, censor, or manipulate responses, often without transparency.
The real blind spot is therefore: who holds admin-level power over tone, topics, and boundaries and how is that power made auditable and constrained by the rule of law? I want books in the library, but not an admin layer that distorts the text at the moment of output. The Problem is not having a book in a library, otherwise any searching engine could be sued. The Problem is, with few easy steps, like persona prompts, topic rankings and filters, and mechanisms of censorship and manipulation, we just get a changed or denied or manipulated version of our books. This whole Databreach debate just dont gets it. I want all books in the bibliothek, but I dont want censorship and manipulation. The focus on the debate should be, how does the output arives and who controls the admins and their behaviour in the first place. If you dont think this is the central question, search for the child porn problem of Grok AI as an extreme example. Or in political sense search how Trump tried to defund Universities for genderrelated medicine studies. The question of regulation and how to regulate should be central and not the databreaches. From the capitalist view of an artist, musician, filmproducer and author, I refuse to bann my stuff from AI. Not because I dont want money, but the pirated discussion happened before on cd's and mp3's. And what happened, the scream for regulation was just a way to only bring the whole music industry as an example into few hands. Its just a way to reduce the amount of competitors and those who can pay the licence fees, and pay marginalised fees to the artists, the big magior labels and companies like Universals and so on just by reducing competition become monopolists. Univesals for example just bought udio.com just few Weeks ago. This shows the run to monopolize the new media format AI has just begun yet. All you haters forget, that you just bring a new tool, and nothing is AI yet, into few hands. The trickle down effect didnt worked with cd's and mp3's either. So why you dont fight for democratisation instead of indirectly and directly for monopolisation? Here in Germany is the GEMA, a private association that represents privatization of public law, which collects over 90% of money to the Magiorlabels of which de facto only the 10-20 top rotation stars within their own consortia get a piece of the pie and 98% of all artists go out of business. Even those who believe in good faith that they pay the annual fee to this private club because they believe that a single, in the end better law firm, would represent them of all people, and not the alleged artificially pushed top stars. Even if Germany is an extreme example in the privatization of de facto law, it is not much different in the USA. All those who shout loudly for regulation only play into the arms of these monopolists and fool themselves in the process. Good luck by continouing shooting in your own legs. This whole debate is just propaganda sceam. So fuck off blind AI haters. Isn’t it enough to see a one-eyed man for what he is, without framing everything through his missing eye? Anyone who can give a human answer to that rhetorical question knows there is no point in humiliating, demeaning deficit-framing, of yourself or of others, just to keep distraction debates alive. And if someone fixates on a single flaw, they should not forget: for some people living with limitations, that ‘flaw’ can still be an immeasurable blessing. The real deployment spectrum of AI runs from mass surveillance and ‘Terminator’ fantasies all the way to practical life-support for people with disabilities. Reducing the debate to either extreme makes us lose the central motivation, the ‘why’ and with it, dignity drops out of view. Maybe some people need that hard boundary to feel safe. But they should not forget the dignity-giving part. Otherwise, the question disqualifies itself from the start. Here a short recording of the kind of constant high-pitched feedback/whine some hearing aids can produce. [BEEP SOUND] Anyone who has actually experienced that as a permanent drawback of an assistive device understands the real motivation: reducing that noise, improving clarity, and making life less exhausting for people who rely on hearing support. And here’s the point: as that motivation drove progress, it also produced broader audio enhancement that even non-disabled people benefit from, cleaner sound, better noise suppression, better intelligibility. So to dismiss or devalue the whole development because it originated as help for disabled people, while simultaneously enjoying the improved sound yourself, is simply illogical. You can draw boundaries against misuse—surveillance, coercion, manipulation, without erasing the dignity of technologies that genuinely help.

Quod est demonstrandum est

by Lino