zlacker

[return to "Tell HN: We should start to add “ai.txt” as we do for “robots.txt”"]
1. samwil+H5[view] [source] 2023-05-10 12:56:05
>>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.

◧◩
2. safety+Wl[view] [source] 2023-05-10 14:11:46
>>samwil+H5
> "We" now want stricter copyright law when it comes to AI, but at the same time shorter copyright duration...

This gross generalization of other people's views on important issues is really offensive.

My view is that the Copyright Act of 1976 had it about right when they established the duration of copyright. My view is that members of Congress were handsomely rewarded by a specific corporation to carve out special exceptions to this law because they wanted larger profits. "We" didn't call the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 the "Mickey Mouse Act" for nothing. It's also no coincidence that Disney is now the largest media company in the world.

Reducing copyright term extension has everything to do with restoring competition and creativity to our economy, and reversing corruption that borders on white collar crime. It has nothing to do with AI. Don't recruit me into some bullshit argument that rewrites history and entrenches Disney's ill-gotten monopoly.

◧◩◪
3. samwil+aw[view] [source] 2023-05-10 14:54:59
>>safety+Wl
My phrasing was absolutely not meant to be read as myself speaking for all, apologies, I certainly don't want to offend.

It has felt on HN and elsewhere that the prevailing attitude to copyright has been these two, somewhat contradictory, things. That's what I was trying to highlight with my phrasing of "we", which was also not meant to include myself but be a nod to the way a vocal group try to steer and dominate the conversion.

Both debates are important to have, I don't know the answers.

◧◩◪◨
4. safety+hP[view] [source] 2023-05-10 16:13:19
>>samwil+aw
Thank you! I think the average HN'er is frankly pretty ignorant about how copyright law works, the history around it, and the arguments for and against various reforms. In fairness it's an esoteric topic and most software developers depend in some way on copyrighted work for their income so that's not a huge surprise I guess. But it probably explains the contradiction you observed!

The #1 issue with copyright today in my opinion is that if we keep on extending it forever, it will forever entrench the wealth and power of a small number of companies that hold the largest portfolios of IP. I think this is also a huge issue for AI, maybe the biggest issue, because at the end of the day an AI is really just another copyrighted work. It is not the anthropomorphized thing that countless people are acting like it is, it's a work. Change copyright and you change the nature of future AI works.

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. pixl97+Eb1[view] [source] 2023-05-10 17:52:40
>>safety+hP
There is contradiction because, in fact, the HN audience is more than one person and those people have different and conflicting views.
[go to top]