Yes, she said that. But what she said there just doesn’t make any sense.

I thought she made some very good points, but the quote in the title makes no sense to me.

The article alleges, though without evidence, that the tracking is just an excuse to raise rates.

A quick search didn’t turn up quite the right statistics, but traffic fatalities have been seriously on the rise in the US. That probably implies higher payouts. (WP)

But also, when trackable unsafe drivers have to pay more (and trackable safe driver less), then the unsafe drivers will prefer to be untrackable. You may be on the receiving end of the recalculated actuary tables.

that will ultimately be used to create huge amounts of wealth for very few,

But… That is what these poisoning attacks are fighting for. They are attacking open image generators that can be used by anyone. You can use them for fun or for business, without having to pay rent to some owner who is not lifting a finger. What do you think will happen if you knock that out?

This attack doesn’t target Big Tech, at all. The model has to be open to pull off an attack like that.

This doesn’t have anything to do with tracking. This is supposed to sabotage free and open image generators (ie stable diffusion). It’s unlikely to do anything, though.

Hard to say what the makers want to achieve with this. Even if it did work, it would help artists just as much, as better DRM would help programmers. On its face, this is just about enforcing some ultra-capitalist ideology that wants information to be owned.