3 ms·

> I'm not convinced this is the path forward for computers either though. With this approach they'll have to contend with the agent running into all the anti-b

> I'm not convinced this is the path forward for computers either though. With this approach they'll have to contend with the agent running into all the anti-bot measures that sites have implemented to deal with abuse. CAPTCHAs, flagging or blocking datacenter IP addresses, etc. Maybe deals could be struck to allow agents to be whitelisted, but that assumes the agents won't also be used for abuse. If you could get ChatGPT to spam Reddit[1] then Reddit probably wouldn't cooperate. [1] https://gizmodo.com/oh-no-this-startup-is-using-ai-agents-to-flood-reddit-with-marketing-slop-2000548827 https://gizmodo.com/oh-no-this-startup-is-using-ai-agents-to...

xnx 2y ago
> With this approach they'll have to contend with the agent running into all the anti-bot measures that sites have implemented to deal with abuse I expect many more sites to adopt login requirements. This has the added benefit of more tracking/marketing data.
TeMPOraL 2y ago
The solution is simple, and it's what's already done with search by proprietary LLMs: reasoning happens on the LLM vendor's servers, tool use happens client-side. Whether for search or "computer use", the websites will register activity coming from the user's machine, as it should be, because LLMs act as User Agents here. Of course, already with LLM-powered search we see growing number of people doing the selfish/idiotic thing and blocking or poisoning user-initiated LLM interactions[0]; hopefully LLM tools following the practice above will spread quickly enough to beat this idea out of peoples' heads. -- [0] - As opposed to LLM company crawlers that scrape the web for training data - blocking those is fine and follows the cultural best practices on the web, which have been holding for decades now. But guess what, LLM crawlers tend to obey robots.txt. The "bots" that don't are usually the ones performing specific query on behalf of users; such bots act as User Agents, neither have nor ever had any obligation to obey robots.txt.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

xnx 2y ago

> With this approach they'll have to contend with the agent running into all the anti-bot measures that sites have implemented to deal with abuse I expect many more sites to adopt login requirements. This has the added benefit of more tracking/marketing data.

TeMPOraL 2y ago

The solution is simple, and it's what's already done with search by proprietary LLMs: reasoning happens on the LLM vendor's servers, tool use happens client-side. Whether for search or "computer use", the websites will register activity coming from the user's machine, as it should be, because LLMs act as User Agents here. Of course, already with LLM-powered search we see growing number of people doing the selfish/idiotic thing and blocking or poisoning user-initiated LLM interactions[0]; hopefully LLM tools following the practice above will spread quickly enough to beat this idea out of peoples' heads. -- [0] - As opposed to LLM company crawlers that scrape the web for training data - blocking those is fine and follows the cultural best practices on the web, which have been holding for decades now. But guess what, LLM crawlers tend to obey robots.txt. The "bots" that don't are usually the ones performing specific query on behalf of users; such bots act as User Agents, neither have nor ever had any obligation to obey robots.txt.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]