[flagged]
Tell HN: We should start to add “ai.txt” as we do for “robots.txt”
181–190 of 296 posts
Re: Tell HN: We should start to add “ai.txt” as we do for “robots.txt”
#182[flagged]
Re: Tell HN: We should start to add “ai.txt” as we do for “robots.txt”
#183Earlier quoted context omitted.
> focus on improving its context recognition rather than trying to fix that by inserting even more training data. That's how you improve its context recognition. You show it many contexts. > most AI projects don't exactly care about things like the wishes of authors, copyright, or ethical considerations Why is it 'ethical' that you get to add a bunch of restrictions to a pre-negotiated situation? You get copyright pr…
> There's a way to add restrictions - licensing - and you're looking to get the benefits of licensing, and to take away fair use right from other people, without paying the costs of doing so. The way copyright laws work is that work is copyrighted (assuming the work is original enough, of course) by default. You don't get to use it unless you have a license. Now, of course, as an author, you can choose to add a licen…
> You don't get to use [a copyrighted work] unless you have a license.
Not when you give it to me. "Hey, can I see your pamphlet? Sure, here's a copy."
> an implicit license to consume this content
No, copyright prevents copying, not use. There's no implicit license needed to use a work so there's no place to attach those usage restrictions. If you want me to agree to a license you need to not give me the work until I do.
You could have a ToS click-through agreement ("no training an AI on this!"), and then only serve content to logged-in users who have agreed to your conditions.
> but not to reproduce it.
I agree - those "pamphlets" were given to me and I can't copy them for someone else. They'd have to view my collection.
> The exact legal status of AI models trained on other people's unlicensed works and their output is still largely unknown.
Sure, predicting all courts in the world is a futile exercise. Surely someone will try to over reach from copyright to preventing what they feel is a bad use but it's unlikely to become law because there are already analogous uses, scanning someone's text and pulling data from it - data like which words follow which other words.
> I do have a problem with these multi billion dollar companies scouring the internet for their money maker, giving nothing in return.
Well, FB released Llama... It's not a closed technology, it's being led by for-profit businesses but the community (which consists of many of the corporate engineers as well) is trying to keep up.
Even if you can and do attach usage regulations to your site I feel it'll hurt the little guy more than the corporations. There are probably not any unique linguistic constructions on your site that will render a corporate AI less valuable, but for hackers and tinkerers and eventual historians, who knows what it'll interfere with.
Re: Tell HN: We should start to add “ai.txt” as we do for “robots.txt”
#184Earlier quoted context omitted.
but copyright is not for information or ideas, information and ideas cannot be copyrighted; it's for creative expression
and why should "creative expression" be owned?
It should be owned as long as people must rely on ownership to survive in our society.
Re: Tell HN: We should start to add “ai.txt” as we do for “robots.txt”
#185Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think they nailed it with the original 1790 act. 14 years + 14 more is plenty.
My biggest critique of copyright is that is unnecessarily collapses financial reward & creative control. It also pegs both as starting at creation - which is not a particularly meaningful point for either problem. IMO I would rather a structure that: - Guarantees creators (and their descendants) some number of years of financial benefit / veto (30 seems fine!) - i.e. pay me what I want or you can't use this creative…
I've heard of a structure in France that's translated as "moral rights" of a work. I met a guy who was the moral rights holder for a deceased author and had the right to veto large and small elements of the representation of the characters, but received no royalties from the works.
Re: Tell HN: We should start to add “ai.txt” as we do for “robots.txt”
#186Your HTML already has semantic meta elements like author and description you should be populating with info like that: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Learn/HTML/Introduc...
How do I add a semantic definition in an HTML tag to a JPEG, or MP4, or WAV, or any non HTML format? HTML tags fix HTML, not other formats.
Re: Tell HN: We should start to add “ai.txt” as we do for “robots.txt”
#187What if we create a new access.txt which all user agents will use to get access to the resources. access.txt will return an individual access key for the user agent like a session, and the user agent can only crawl using the access key This would mean that we could standardize session starts with rate limits. Regular user is unlikely to hit the user rate limits, but bots would get rocked by rate limiting. Great. Now…
I might not understand you, but what prevents me from conducting a Sybil attack (a.k.a. a sock puppet attack) against this system? Seems like it relies on everyone playing by the rules and only requesting one license per user. Why would a bot developer be incentivized to follow that rule and not just request 1M licenses?
That's a great point thank you for bringing this up.
I don't have a solution for that, and frankly my proposal was putting a lot of work onto the platforms that wanted to support it so I'm not sure it would get much traction.
Re: Tell HN: We should start to add “ai.txt” as we do for “robots.txt”
#188Your HTML already has semantic meta elements like author and description you should be populating with info like that: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Learn/HTML/Introduc...
How do I add a semantic definition in an HTML tag to a JPEG, or MP4, or WAV, or any non HTML format? HTML tags fix HTML, not other formats.
What would the difference in semantic notation between an unstructured "ai.txt" and the "alt" attribute actually be? If you want the tags to be served with the context outside of HTML, you can always use HTML header attributes.
Re: Tell HN: We should start to add “ai.txt” as we do for “robots.txt”
#189Earlier quoted context omitted.
robots.txt is about crawling, ai.txt would assumably be either augmentative metadata or specific copyright terms of use with respect to AI uses.
> specific copyright terms of use There's no such thing. Without a license you can't enforce any restrictions. AI training is basically just building a very complex Markov chain, that's obviously not copyright violation because the output product doesn't contain the input - only data about it. If your text has been copied then please point to it in these weights here.
markov, shmarkov, either you need those original works or you don't. If you can build your markov chain without them please go ahead
But we all know without these original works such a tool cannot exist in principle, the works are the key ingredient, so now please explain how we are not looking at these works being exploited commercially and copyright being violated.
The output product is an automatically created derivative work, copyright very much applies especially since the tool is used to generate derivative works for profit (like in case of openai/microsoft).
Re: Tell HN: We should start to add “ai.txt” as we do for “robots.txt”
#190Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There's a way to add restrictions - licensing - and you're looking to get the benefits of licensing, and to take away fair use right from other people, without paying the costs of doing so. The way copyright laws work is that work is copyrighted (assuming the work is original enough, of course) by default. You don't get to use it unless you have a license. Now, of course, as an author, you can choose to add a licen…
> You don't get to use [a copyrighted work] unless you have a license. Not when you give it to me. "Hey, can I see your pamphlet? Sure, here's a copy." > an implicit license to consume this content No, copyright prevents copying, not use. There's no implicit license needed to use a work so there's no place to attach those usage restrictions. If you want me to agree to a license you need to not give me the work until…
>> You don't get to use [a copyrighted work] unless you have a license.
>Not when you give it to me. "Hey, can I see your pamphlet? Sure, here's a copy."
>> an implicit license to consume this content
>No, copyright prevents copying, not use. There's no implicit license needed to use a work so there's no place to attach those usage restrictions. If you want me to agree to a license you need to not give me the work until I do.
>You could have a ToS click-through agreement ("no training an AI on this!"), and then only serve content to logged-in users who have agreed to your conditions.
Fair enough, I worded that wrong.
>Sure, predicting all courts in the world is a futile exercise. Surely someone will try to over reach from copyright to preventing what they feel is a bad use but it's unlikely to become law because there are already analogous uses, scanning someone's text and pulling data from it - data like which words follow which other words.
Kazaa was banned despite being very popular for a few years. The DMCA was signed into law years after the first copyright trouble started. Just because the government is slow doesn't mean they won't write new law.
> Well, FB released Llama... It's not a closed technology, it's being led by for-profit businesses but the community (which consists of many of the corporate engineers as well) is trying to keep up.
FB's model leaked, it was subject to a strict whitelist originally. They didn't mean for it to get out there, but they wisely chose not to cause the Streisand effect to hurt them even more. And OpenAI (nice name) stopped releasing their model after it became good enough.
> Even if you can and do attach usage regulations to your site I feel it'll hurt the little guy more than the corporations. There are probably not any unique linguistic constructions on your site that will render a corporate AI less valuable, but for hackers and tinkerers and eventual historians, who knows what it'll interfere with.
I don't want to hurt anyone. I wish AI companies would do the right thing and simply ask for permission before taking someone's work and training on it. I'd probably agree if they did so a few years back!
I know my contribution to the larger model is extremely insignificant. However, my incentive to help others is greatly diminished when my wishes and ethical concerns are ignored so blatantly. I also don't think I'm alone in this. The amount of digital art I'm seeing in my timelines has greatly decreased, for example; more and more is being locked away behind paywalls because sharing your work freely only helps megacorporations replace you.