Scraper no scraping.
  • Telorand@reddthat.comEnglish
    1971·
    1 day ago

    Google and other megacorps with AI slopbots: AI bots should be free to slurp up as much data as they want. It doesn’t break copyright!

    Also those companies: Wait, AI isn’t allowed to steal from us!

  • foodandart@lemmy.zipEnglish
    86·
    1 day ago

    From The Verge page: “SerpApi says it can deliver Google search results for use by AI tools, but Google claims it’s illegally evading bot-blockers to steal copyrighted content.”

    Bwahahahah! Oh, now that gave me a great laugh!

      • ayyy@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        51·
        3 hours ago

        This is completely untrue. The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act uses extremely broad wording. People have been sued for right clicking on a webpage and saying “View Source” before. Aaron Schwartz, co-founder of Reddit, was driven to suicide after a harassment campaign by the FBI and scientific paper publishers, as another example.

    • Archer@lemmy.worldEnglish
      5·
      19 hours ago

      Can you post the archive link so I don’t have to laugh at The Verge asking for me to give them money for their “journalism”?

    • reksas@sopuli.xyzEnglish
      35·
      7 hours ago

      Ai-generated reply:

      Summaries like this are risky because they replace reading with compression. Important qualifiers disappear, uncertainty gets smoothed over, and the result sounds more confident than the original ever was. That alone already weakens the discussion. Piling automated responses on top of that doesn’t fix the problem—it just adds more distance from the source. The conversation starts orbiting generated text instead of the article itself, until no one involved can clearly say what was actually argued or why. At that point the exchange still looks productive, but it’s mostly just well-formed text responding to other well-formed text.

  • veee@lemmy.caEnglish
    38·
    1 day ago

    And here I thought the pitch for AI was all about democratizing knowledge. Womp womp.