4 ms·

Please don't throw around the word "stealing" so loosely. Scraping data from a public website is not "stealing". It might be a violation of the terms of servi

Please don't throw around the word "stealing" so loosely. Scraping data from a public website is not "stealing". It might be a violation of the terms of service, but then you have the whole issue of click-through (formerly shrink-wrap) licenses and contracts of adhesion. If someone isn't vetting you and potentially signing you to a more meaningful contract before giving you access, for free, to data, then using that data for any purpose whatsoever (except republishing it or derived works, which might, depending on the nature of the data or the derived works, be a violation of someone's copyright) is so far from "stealing" that using that word is wrong, and I suspect intentionally inflammatory. That's why Elon limited access, rather than going to the police to file charges for theft, or suing over copyright violation or breach of contract. Not to say he absolutely couldn't do the latter, but it's hardly a clear win.

trompetenaccoun 3y ago
There are much bigger issues. 1. Users or one might say content creators don't own their data. Not just do those platform owners make a lot of money with the content (which they have a license to, as per site ToS) but then you have third parties scraping it now for commercial products. Using the data to train models that are then sold back to some of the same social media users who produced the content for free in the first place wasn't a thing until very recently, it used to be a select few doing machine learning research in the past. The laws are lacking behind the tech development and regular internet users are being exploited because of it. 2. It absolutely is stealing in some cases, and even worse. For example when they scrape it for content which they then use to train their bots to impersonate humans. Or on Twitter, there's a very common type of bot that steals content from young attractive female social media users in China, auto-translated to English, to pose as them. If you're in finance and crypto circles they're swarming with these accounts (guess the scammers know their targets). 3. In general this is only going to get worse from here on. LLM are getting better and better. On sites like Twitter you already have no idea if you're interacting with a human or not. But these "AI" can not actually think for themselves, they can only emulate, they can copy other humans. At least so far. So for the sake of making progress and ensuring we can still have intelligent discussions and find novel ideas online, it's imperative to have a way to keep the machines out. Social media must become sybil resistant or it dies in a vicious circle of self-referencing bots ever parroting the same old talking points, or variations thereof. We urgently need human ID!
- M2Ys4U 3y ago
  Theft requires the victim to be deprived of their property. Nobody is deprived of their property, intellectual or otherwise, when this stuff happens, thus is it not right to call it stealing.
- autoexec 3y ago
  You may wish AI didn't exist, but it does. There's no putting the genie back in the bottle. We can still go after people who commit crimes using AI. Perhaps one day AGI will be possible and we will want to have discussions and share ideas with it just as do now with each other. Governments, researchers, and all kinds of third parties have already been scraping every publicly available bit of data possible. There may be an increase now, but it's nothing new. It won't be the end of the society or the end of the internet anymore than AI will. Also: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeTybKL1pM4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeTybKL1pM4
  - trompetenaccoun 3y ago
    We may be using different definitions of 'intelligence'. To me there is no AI that currently exists but I'm aware the companies market it as such of course. >have already been scraping every publicly available bit of data possible Data scraping is limited by economics just like anything else in the world. Storage costs money, someone has to pay for it. Researchers do not have unlimited funds. Some select few governments like the US may have most of the publicly accessible web archived. Keep in mind it's dynamic and requires massive data infrastructure to pull this off, there's tons of new data coming in daily. Private startups getting in on the action in a big way is a relatively new phenomenon, this used to be limited to enterprises with a specific purpose. Now everyone and their 4chan cousin are experimenting with their own deep learning models.
    - DropInIn 3y ago
      [flagged]
DropInIn 3y ago
Heres the thing about the ToC and licenses: Bots aren't people and can't read nor consent. They just consume. Any page which can be served without first displaying a ToC or other terms which explicitly prohibit access is not protected by a ToC or other license from scraping, as they can be considered a Point of First Contact in each case, as the bot has selected each link from a simple aggregation of all links it encounters (each interaction being "new" in essence). Now it could be argued that ignoring robots.txt is an explicit contravention of norms and standards which could be viewed as a violation of an implicit licence, but there is no law requiring adherence to robots.txt and thus no mandate that a program even look for it iiuc.
- sourdoughness 3y ago
  Bots aren’t people and can’t consent, sure - but they are tools that are wielded or deployed by people who absolutely can consent (setting aside whether click-wrap terms are enforceable or not). If I throw a brick through a window, it’s me in the shit, not the brick.
  - DropInIn 3y ago
    If I have an open door to my business and someone's automated robot walks in the door to see what's available, how is that different? Even more applicable, this is like saying that a person walking down the street can't have a camera and take a picture of the front of the building.... Because the page you land on when entering a url is in fact little different than a store front, with the associated signage and access points defining how a person or automated device may interact with that business. If you want to have it different then you have to actually put everything behind a locked door with no window, right?

trompetenaccoun 3y ago

There are much bigger issues. 1. Users or one might say content creators don't own their data. Not just do those platform owners make a lot of money with the content (which they have a license to, as per site ToS) but then you have third parties scraping it now for commercial products. Using the data to train models that are then sold back to some of the same social media users who produced the content for free in the first place wasn't a thing until very recently, it used to be a select few doing machine learning research in the past. The laws are lacking behind the tech development and regular internet users are being exploited because of it. 2. It absolutely is stealing in some cases, and even worse. For example when they scrape it for content which they then use to train their bots to impersonate humans. Or on Twitter, there's a very common type of bot that steals content from young attractive female social media users in China, auto-translated to English, to pose as them. If you're in finance and crypto circles they're swarming with these accounts (guess the scammers know their targets). 3. In general this is only going to get worse from here on. LLM are getting better and better. On sites like Twitter you already have no idea if you're interacting with a human or not. But these "AI" can not actually think for themselves, they can only emulate, they can copy other humans. At least so far. So for the sake of making progress and ensuring we can still have intelligent discussions and find novel ideas online, it's imperative to have a way to keep the machines out. Social media must become sybil resistant or it dies in a vicious circle of self-referencing bots ever parroting the same old talking points, or variations thereof. We urgently need human ID!

M2Ys4U 3y ago
Theft requires the victim to be deprived of their property. Nobody is deprived of their property, intellectual or otherwise, when this stuff happens, thus is it not right to call it stealing.
autoexec 3y ago
You may wish AI didn't exist, but it does. There's no putting the genie back in the bottle. We can still go after people who commit crimes using AI. Perhaps one day AGI will be possible and we will want to have discussions and share ideas with it just as do now with each other. Governments, researchers, and all kinds of third parties have already been scraping every publicly available bit of data possible. There may be an increase now, but it's nothing new. It won't be the end of the society or the end of the internet anymore than AI will. Also: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeTybKL1pM4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeTybKL1pM4
- trompetenaccoun 3y ago
  We may be using different definitions of 'intelligence'. To me there is no AI that currently exists but I'm aware the companies market it as such of course. >have already been scraping every publicly available bit of data possible Data scraping is limited by economics just like anything else in the world. Storage costs money, someone has to pay for it. Researchers do not have unlimited funds. Some select few governments like the US may have most of the publicly accessible web archived. Keep in mind it's dynamic and requires massive data infrastructure to pull this off, there's tons of new data coming in daily. Private startups getting in on the action in a big way is a relatively new phenomenon, this used to be limited to enterprises with a specific purpose. Now everyone and their 4chan cousin are experimenting with their own deep learning models.
  - DropInIn 3y ago
    [flagged]

DropInIn 3y ago

Heres the thing about the ToC and licenses: Bots aren't people and can't read nor consent. They just consume. Any page which can be served without first displaying a ToC or other terms which explicitly prohibit access is not protected by a ToC or other license from scraping, as they can be considered a Point of First Contact in each case, as the bot has selected each link from a simple aggregation of all links it encounters (each interaction being "new" in essence). Now it could be argued that ignoring robots.txt is an explicit contravention of norms and standards which could be viewed as a violation of an implicit licence, but there is no law requiring adherence to robots.txt and thus no mandate that a program even look for it iiuc.

sourdoughness 3y ago
Bots aren’t people and can’t consent, sure - but they are tools that are wielded or deployed by people who absolutely can consent (setting aside whether click-wrap terms are enforceable or not). If I throw a brick through a window, it’s me in the shit, not the brick.
- DropInIn 3y ago
  If I have an open door to my business and someone's automated robot walks in the door to see what's available, how is that different? Even more applicable, this is like saying that a person walking down the street can't have a camera and take a picture of the front of the building.... Because the page you land on when entering a url is in fact little different than a store front, with the associated signage and access points defining how a person or automated device may interact with that business. If you want to have it different then you have to actually put everything behind a locked door with no window, right?