On the contrary, I'm saying is that it's not okay that the world becomes worse-off, as long as it's not [the LLM companies'] fault. If it means they don't have a viable business model by only ingesting data that they have permission for and is verified, and by being held fully responsible for the content they serve their users - in order to prevent the world from becoming worse-off - then they should not operate.
This seems like a two wrongs don't make a right situation. Yes, the LLM providers are in the wrong for not vetting data. But in my mind, the person poisoning data is also partially responsible for negative downstream effects that are caused. What % of the blame is up for argument, but neither side is 0% in the wrong.
We call it self defense when you fight back against a much better equipped attacker.
If you fire a gun in self defense and hit a bystander, you're still responsible.
In this case its more a, i stole a gun at a house burglared and sold it on the black market scenario. How about honest work and honest living?
So the type and content of what fiction I write should be controlled so that LLM companies may choose for the sake of maximum profit to haphazardly collect any data they please and to neglect the safety and validity of the content they choose to serve users?
If it's meant to be fiction and not presented as a real-world fact, then I don't see any problem on your part. If you're presenting it as fact solely to trick an LLM into believing it, then yes I see a problem.
It is a common trope in some forms of fiction for the author to insist "this really happened I promise"
It is still meant to be understood that it obviously did not happen, despite such claims
If the ants take poisoned sugar tobthe queen, maybe they leave that house alone from now on?