AI haters? I don't hate AI I just don't want things I've created being used to enrich multi-billion dollar companies for free. These companies are behaving poorly and they should expect this kind of push back.
Well its soft propaganda, what do you expect, they want to force a false dichotomy to shape public perception.
It is immaterial that these AI companies ignore contractual obligations (TOS), and are in fact performing attacks on said sites (DDOS is an attack).
In the last 3 months, there have been 4 or 5 small project that I regularly frequent where their sites that have been knocked offline as a result of this type of bad behavior, where they definitely are not following the robots.txt.
The article completely misses the point that AI scrapers are not a "future threat of AI domination". They already do damage by DDOSing site's networking infrastructure and inflicting very real costs to a site hoster.
Even when the data is completely free, like in case of Wikipedia or OpenstreetMaps, scraping it is unethical and should be illegal. Most of the open data resources have procedures, which allow downloading of the data in the archived form, without need for scraping. They are built with sharing in mind.
So the arguments the article tries to use (what if it is for public good?) has no sense. 1) it is not 2) there are many ways to fetch the open data properly and respectfully.
> I don't hate AI I just don't want things I've created being used to enrich multi-billion dollar companies for free.
I mean I think in the minds of AI evangelists (particularly of the quasi-religious "LLMs will bring forth a benevolent god-like superintelligence" variety), those are essentially the same thing.
(Yeah, it's ridiculous characterisation, but given the source it shouldn't be _surprising_ characterisation.)
Yeah, I think the title of this post and the article are a little tilted… we have every right to say no or not cooperate with something we don’t believe in.
Something that is named intelligent, does not get "tricked", or need to be defended, or qualified, or defined, aaaand can take a trillion dollar market colapse in stride, pull up its big artificial undies all by itself,right!
Way ,way to late for some kind of academic splaining things away.
People bet a lot lot more than the meer trillion dollars.Primary national stratigic objectives have been put into play, on the promise of hardware and AI based dominence, and ZAM, just like that, North Korea etall, are jammin that artificial jive.
So all of the main hypsters, are going to be promoted to somewhere, quiet and dry.
It is realy troubleing that last week, ai tarpits
were amusing, inconsequential, pranks, and now its
"AI haters".The author of the ai tarpit was self depreciating, and recognised that there actions were symbolic at best.
Cool. I hate the term of calling AI because its an excuse to throw out a flawed pretentious innovation where by it can be flogged as a product to sucker those who don't know better.
Is this because they are multi-billion dollar companies, or because they behave poorly, or because you haven't been properly compensated for your contribution to the content on the internet?
It is very likely that voting, or voting with your wallet, or probably any kind of activism, would have more impact than withdrawing from the (online) public life.
> because they are multi-billion dollar companies, or because they behave poorly
Both for me. They should be spanked for their behavior and lack of respect. I don’t want compensation though because I write open-source applications, but I want them to respect the license (which they don’t obviously).
Also I don’t understand why you feel anybody is withdrawing from the internet. It’s only a tarpit and I’m sure most of those who react don’t have ChatGPT subscriptions.
> because you haven't been properly compensated for your contribution to the content on the internet
Copyright is - like it or not - the way we regulate commercial intellectual "property". I can see different IP doctrines, and I don't necessarily defend the current one. It's not derived from real property rights, but rather in ensuring economic incentives for people to make stuff that otherwise wouldn't have been made, such as pharmaceuticals and hollywood movies, to simulate property rights. It's an imperfect solution which is there to ensure economic incentives and balance, and most importantly, it's the one we got.
But then, multi-billion dollar corporations feed your copyright protected (you thought) works straight into their supply chain, wouldn't you be pissed? It's no a small part either, but their models would be extremely nerfed without copyrighted data. Forget AI, forget tech, just look at it from a purely economic ecosystem perspective. Crying "fair use" during a highway robbery probably don't sit right with many, I hope.
I already don't pay for any ai services or touch any models. but Increasingly services that used to be helpful for me are throwing them in - YouTube premium has some sort of ai summarize things, etc. how do I signal that I don't want companies scraping content there?
You pose this as though there isn't a long and proud history of the Internet reacting with (sometimes unhinged) hostility to bad actors that goes ALLLLLL the way back to the BBS era.
One of the first persons that tried to scam users out of money by asking for help with his tuition was doxxed by his own ISP after the aforementioned ISP got so much hatemail it crashed their servers when his message was posted to every message board by a script which caused prolific BBS users to download it possibly several hundred times, paying for the privilege of each message.
> or because you haven't been properly compensated for your contribution to the content on the internet?
This comes across as snark, but I will assume you are well meaning. I have put code, guides, and videos on the internet for other people to consume for free in the hope that those people find that stuff useful.
I did not put stuff on the internet for it to be hoovered up and frankly stolen by massive AI companies to enrich themselves. If they are going to use my things in their commercial product than yes, they should be compensating me for that.
> Is this because they are multi-billion dollar companies, or because they behave poorly
It's also both of these.
> It is very likely that voting, or voting with your wallet, or probably any kind of activism, would have more impact than withdrawing from the (online) public life.
The only true control I have is withdrawing. I don't give these companies money, I don't live in a country that can meaningfully legislate against them, and I would consider withdrawing a form of activism.
I refuse to support these AI companies in any way (as long as they continue to be bad actors) and I have taken down all Youtube videos I've created, my personal website, and I have moved all my code to a self hosted, private Git service in order to deny them my work.
It is immaterial that these AI companies ignore contractual obligations (TOS), and are in fact performing attacks on said sites (DDOS is an attack).
In the last 3 months, there have been 4 or 5 small project that I regularly frequent where their sites that have been knocked offline as a result of this type of bad behavior, where they definitely are not following the robots.txt.
The article is just bad shilled journalism.