I have been pretty adamant about the privacy issues and stealing of content issues with AI... but this particular case seems, honestly I am on the side of perpl

I have been pretty adamant about the privacy issues and stealing of content issues with AI... but this particular case seems, honestly I am on the side of perplexity here. Mostly... Once we get to the point of this AI running locally, or you just have a browser extension that grabs the data and sends it to the server, what is the difference between what it is doing now and that. If I use an AI and I give it a specific URL I think the expectation is that it is acting like a user and not like a crawler so the robots.txt is meaningless. That doesn't mean that perplexity is free of any blame here, if they are getting around paywalls or then using this loophole to gather up the data to train later. That isnt ok. I am also concerned about the reports of them using third party crawlers to get around blocking them. But, purely on what this seems to be focused on and the example given. I don't see anything wrong with it when it is triggered based on a specific action of the user. And should be the expected behavior IMO. Headline grabbing articles like this I feel like undermine the valid criticism of AI because it can be used to paint a picture of a vendetta against AI or worse as an example of why these arguments are wrong as a way to discredit large swaths of criticism. We really need to be more mindefull about how we criticize the real problems with the technology.