161–170 of 520 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
AI poisoning is a better protection. Cloudflare is capable of serving stashes of bad data to AI bots as protective barrier to their clients.
AI poisoning is going to get a lot of people killed, be cause the AI won't stop being used.
[flagged]
Allowlist is arguably fitting for a list of things which are allowed.
I have zero issue with Ai Agents, if there's a real user behind there somewhere. I DO have a major issue with my sites being crawled extremely aggressively by offenders including Meta, Perplexity and OpenAI - it's really annoying realising that we're tying up several cpu cores on AI crawling. Less than on real users and google et al.
> I DO have a major issue with my sites being crawled extremely aggressively by offenders including Meta, Perplexity and OpenAI Gee, if only we had, like, one central archive of the internet. We could even call it the internet archive. Then, all these AI companies could interface directly with that single entity on terms that are agreeable.
Well, if you have a better way to solve this that’s open I’m all ears. But what Cloudflare is doing is solving the real problem of AI bots. We’ve tried to solve this problem with IP blocking and user agents, but they do not work. And this is actually how other similar problems have been solved. Certificate authorities aren’t open and yet they work just fine. Attestation providers are also not open and they work just…
Everyone loves the dream of a free for all and open web. But the reality is how can someone small protect their blog or content from AI training bots? E.g.: They just blindly trust someone is sending Agent vs Training bots and super duper respecting robots.txt? Get real... Or, fine what if they do respect robots.txt, but they buy the data that may or may not have been shielded through liability layers via "licensed d…
> Everyone loves the dream of a free for all and open web. > protect their blog or content from AI training bots It strikes me that one needs to chose one of these as their visionary future. Specifically: a free and open web is one where read access is unfettered to humans and AI training bots alike. So much of the friction and malfunction of the web stems from efforts to exert control over the flow (and reuse) of in…
The AI crawlers are going to get smarter at crawling, and they'll have crawled and cached everything anyway; they'll just be reading your new stuff. They should literally just buy the Internet Archive jointly, and only read everything once a week or so. But people (to protect their precious ideas) will then just try to figure out how to block the IA.
One thing I wish people would stop doing is conflating their precious ideas and their bandwidth. The bandwidth is one very serious issue, because it's a denial of service attack. But it can be easily solved. Your precious ideas? Those have to be protected by a court. And I don't actually care iff the copyright violation can go both ways; wealthy people seem to be free to steal from the poor at will, even rewarded, "normal" (upper-middle class) people can't even afford to challenge obviously fraudulent copyright claims, and the penalties are comically absurd and the direct result of corruption.
Maybe having pay-to-play justice systems that punish the accused before conviction with no compensation was a bad idea? Even if it helped you to feel safe from black people? Maybe copyright is dumb now that there aren't any printers anymore, just rent-seekers hiding bitfields?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
AI poisoning is going to get a lot of people killed, be cause the AI won't stop being used.
By that logic AI already killing people. We can't presume that whatever can be found on the internet is reliable data, can't we?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What we need is some legal teeth behind robots.txt. It won't stop everyone, but Big Corp would be a tasty target for lawsuits.
What we need is stop fighting robots and start welcoming and helping them. I se zero reasons to oppose robots visiting any website I would build. The only purpose I ever tried disallowed robots for was preventing search engines from indexing incomplete versions or going the paths which really make no sense for them to go. Now I think we should write separate instructions for different kinds of robots: a search engine…
Well, I'm glad you speak for the entire Internet.
Pack it in folks, we've solved the problem. Tomorrow, I'll give us the solution to wealth inequality (just stop fighting efforts to redistribute wealth and political power away from billionaires hoarding it), and next week, we'll finally get to resolve the old question of software patents.
I think the reality is, we need identity on both the client and server sides. At some point soon, if not now, assume everything is generated by AI unless proven otherwise using a decentralized ID. Likewise, on the server side, assume it’s a bot unless proven otherwise using a decentralized ID. We can still have anonymity using decentralized IDs. An identity can be an anonymous identity, it’s not all (verified by some…
Why law enforcement doesn't do their job, resulting in people not bothering to report things anymore, is imo the real issue here. Third party identification services to replace a failing government branch is pretty ugly as a workaround, but perhaps less ugly than the commercial gatekeepers popping up today
Everyone loves the dream of a free for all and open web. But the reality is how can someone small protect their blog or content from AI training bots? E.g.: They just blindly trust someone is sending Agent vs Training bots and super duper respecting robots.txt? Get real... Or, fine what if they do respect robots.txt, but they buy the data that may or may not have been shielded through liability layers via "licensed d…
They don't use cloudlfare AFAIK.
They normally use a puzzle that the website generates, or the use a proof of work based capcha. I've found proof of work good enough out of these two, and it also means that the site owner can run it themselves instead of being reliant on cloudflare and third parties.
The real question is whether there is more business opportunity in supporting "unsigned" agents than signed ones. My hope is that the industry rejects this because there's more money to be made in catering to agents than blocking them. This move is mostly to create a moat for legacy business.
Also, if agents do become the de-facto way of browsing the internet, I'm not a fan of more ways of being tracked for ads and more ways for censorship groups to have leverage.
But the author is making a strawman argument over a "steelman" argument against signed agents. The strongest argument I can see is not that we don't need gatekeepers, but that regulation is anti-business.