Back

@tante I have mixed feelings.

Crawlers should respect robots.txt….

At the same time: there is clearly an emotionally based bias happening with LLM’s.

I feel weird about the idea of actively sabotaging. Considering it is only towards bad actors… and considering maybe robots.txt often are too restrictive in my opinion… the gray areas overlap a bit.

Why should we want to actively sabatoge AI dev? Wouldn’t that lead to possible catastrophic results? Who benefits from dumber ai?

@altruios @tante Because what they're doing is without consent, in violation of law in ways that normal ppl have had their lives ruined over, but they're backed by asshole billionaires so it's fine when they do it. We all benefit from sabotaging their scam products.

@dalias @altruios @tante They're crawling the web, running code against it and providing a service based on the results. How's that any different to what search engines have been doing for the last 30 years?

@woe2you @altruios @tante No, they're preparing unauthorized derivative works. And they're explicitly and intentionally disregarding opt-out. Ability to access something via the web does not imply right to incorporate it into other works, republish altered versions of it, etc.

@dalias @woe2you @tante

The difference between a human reading a website and writing an article ‘inspired by’ what they’ve read And an LLM consuming and outputting content the same way is we recognize that an LLM is a tool and can do the same thing faster.

Reading is training. Reading isn’t copying. Output is the issue: not input. It’s worrisome to see so many not grasp this.

Looking/copying isnt stealing. It just isn’t. No one lost their website.