zlacker

>>Jeanne+(OP)
Using robots.txt as a model for anything doesn't work. All a robots.txt is is a polite request to please follow the rules in it, there is no "legal" agreement to follow those rules, only a moral imperative.

Robots.txt has failed as a system, if it hadn't we wouldn't have captchas or Cloudflare.

In the age of AI we need to better understand where copyright applies to it, and potentially need reform of copyright to align legislation with what the public wants. We need test cases.

The thing I somewhat struggle with is that after 20-30 years of calls for shorter copyright terms, lesser restrictions on content you access publicly, and what you can do with it, we are now in the situation where the arguments are quickly leaning the other way. "We" now want stricter copyright law when it comes to AI, but at the same time shorter copyright duration...

In many ways an ai.txt would be worse than doing nothing as it's a meaningless veneer that would be ignored, but pointed to as the answer.

>>samwil+H5
I have the belief that models should be allowed to ingest everything, just as a human is allowed. We are not yet at the stage where AI is autonomous, they currently are designed to require human agency for input, human agency for evaluation of output, and finally human agency for the dissemination of select output. This last important stage is well understood in the field of photography, but currently ignored in AI stewardship dialogues. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the human agent who selects AI information products to determine its legality and appropriateness, just as if they had snapped a photograph and are wrestling with the decision whether or not it should be distributed in a particular medium. It takes a fairly selfish consciousness to become obsessed with the desire to prevent AI models access to information and disregard the collective benefits of rich information availability to training.