Making something opt-out is not synonymous with "not asking", especially if a) the option is presented at the time you begin to use the product (or feature, in this case!); or b) it's clearly communicated that it's being set as opt-in by default and you have a clear path to opt-out before the changes take effect.

They're simply putting the burden on you to make that decision. To me, this is fair: in all likelihood, if this were an opt-in choice, Figma would receive a dismal opt-in rate. There's a huge gap between "folks who would opt in, given the choice" and "folks who would opt out, given the choice", filled with "folks who don't really care either way".

The folks who don't care (and a good chunk of those who would opt out) are likely people who would never use that data themselves, so it's simply going to waste. Making it opt-out captures the most useful information for Figma, while still providing the folks who care about their "privacy" the option to not contribute their data (while still benefitting from those who do!).

In all honesty, choosing to opt out of this specific data agreement comes across as the desire to freeload: folks who are opting out are choosing to not contribute to the training of the AI features they're opting in to using (remember, these are features you have to opt in to a waitlist to eventually use), while still wanting to use those same features. Under that lens, I wouldn't have a problem with Figma requiring people to share their data in order to use the AI features while they're under development (i.e. during the waitlist period). Afterwards, I can see it being an opt-in or opt-out thing--but during development of the AI features that would be trained on this data, it seems most fair to say that if you want the AI features early, you should have to contribute your own data in order to use them. That seems like a fair and equitable trade, to me?