- cross-posted to:
- technology@beehaw.org
- cross-posted to:
- technology@beehaw.org
You must log in or register to comment.
The open and free web is long dead.
just thinking about robots.txt as a working solution to people that literally broker in peoples entire digital lives for hundreds of billions of dollars is so … quaint.
you’re jaded. me, too. but you’re jaded.
i prefer “antiqued” but yes
It’s up there with Do-Not-Track.
Completely pointless because it’s not enforced
Do-Not-Track, AKA, “I’ve made my browser fingerprint more unique for you, please sell my data”
Most every other social contract has been violated already. If they don’t ignore robots.txt, what is left to violate?? Hmm??
It’s almost as if leaving things to social contracts vs regulating them is bad for the layperson… 🤔
Nah fuck it. The market will regulate itself! Tax is theft and I don’t want that raise or I’ll get in a higher tax bracket and make less!
God the number of people I’ve heard say this over the years is nuts.
Yea, because authoritarianism is well known to be sooooo good for the layperson.
Ah yes, equal protection under the law… the true hallmark of an authoritarian regime.
Fiction can be fun!
I got it was sarcasm, but it’s always good to add a /s just in case
And then the companies hit the “trust thermocline”, customers leave them in droves and companies wonder how this could’ve happened.
This can actually be an issue for poor people, not because of tax brackets but because of income-based assistance cutoffs. If $1/hr raise throws you above those cutoffs, that extra $160 could cost you $500 in food assistance, $5-$10/day for school lunch, or get you kicked out of government subsidied housing.
Yet another form of persecution that the poor actually suffer and the rich pretend to.
Well the trump era has shown that ignoring social contracts and straight up crime are only met with profit and slavish devotion from a huge community of dipshits. So. Y’know.
Only if you’re already rich or in the right social circles though. Everyone else gets fined/jail time of course.
Meh maybe. I know plenty of people who get away with all kinds of crap without money or connections.
Alternative title: Capitalism doesn’t care about morals and contracts. It wants to make more money.
Exactly. Capitalism spits in the face of the concept of a social contract, especially if companies themselves didn’t write it.
Capitalism, at least, in a lassie-faire marketplace, operates on a social contract, fiat money is an example of this. The market decides, the people decide. Are there ways to amass a certain amount of money to make people turn blind eyes? For sure, but all systems have their ways to amass power, no matter what
I’d say that historical evidence directly contradicts your thesis. Were it factual, times of minimal regulation would be times of universal prosperity. Instead, they are the time of robber-barons, company scrip that must be spent in company stores, workers being massacred by hired thugs, and extremely disparate distribution of wealth.
No. Laissez-faire capitalism has only ever consistently benefitted the already wealthy and sociopaths happy to ignore social contact for their own benefit.
You said “a social contract”. Capitalism operates on one. “The social contract” as you presumably intend to use it here is different. Yes, capitalism allows those with money to generate money, but a disproportionate distribution of wealth is not violation of a social contract. I’m not arguing for deregulation, FAR from it, but the social contract is there. If a corporation is doing something too unpopular then people don’t work for them and they cease to exist.
If a corporation is doing something too unpopular then people don’t work for them and they cease to exist.
Unfortunately, this is not generally the case. In the US, for example, the corporation merely engages in legalized bribery to ensure that people are dependent upon it (ex. limiting healthcare access, erosion of social safety nets) and don’t have a choice but to work for them or die. Disproportionate distribution of wealth may not by itself be a violation of social contact but if gives the wealthy extreme leverage to use in coercing those who are not wealthy and further eroding protections against bad actors. This has been shown historically to be a self-reinforcing cycle that requires that the wealthy be forced to stop.
Yes, regulations should be in place, but the “legalized bribery” isn’t forcing people, it’s just easier to stick with the status quo than change it. They aren’t forced to die, it’s just a lot of work to not. The social contract is there, it’s just one we don’t like
Capitalism is a concept, it can’t care if it wanted and it even can’t want to begin with. It’s the humans. You will find greedy, immoral ones in every system and they will make it miserable for everyone else.
Capitalism is the widelly accepted self-serving justification of those people for their acts.
The real problem is in the “widelly accepted” part: a sociopath killing an old lady and justifying it because “she looked funny at me” wouldn’t be “widelly accepted” and Society would react in a suitable way, but if said sociopath scammed the old lady’s pension fund because (and this is a typical justification in Investment Banking) “the opportunity was there and if I didn’t do it somebody else would’ve, so better be me and get the profit”, it’s deemed “acceptable” and Society does not react in a suitable way.
Mind you, Society (as in, most people) might actually want to react in a suitable way, but the structures in our society are such that the Official Power Of Force in our countries is controlled by a handful of people who got there with crafty marketing and backroom plays, and those deem it “acceptable”.
It’s deemed “acceptable”? A sociopath scamming an old lady’s pension is basically the “John Wick’s dog” moment that leads to the insane death-filled warpath in recent movie The Beekeeper.
This is the kind of edgelord take that routinely expects worse than the worst of society with no proof to their claims.
This is the kind of shit I saw from the inside in Investment Banking before and after the 2008 Crash.
None of those assholes ever gets prison time for the various ways in which they abuse markets and even insider info for swindeling amongst other Pension Funds, so de facto the Society we have with the power structures it has, accepts it.
People will always find justification to be asholes. Capitalism tried to harvest that energy and unleashed it’s full potential, with rather devastating consequences.
Sure, but think-structures matter. We could have a system that doesn’t reward psychopathic business choices (as much), while still improving our lives bit by bit. If the system helps a bit with making the right choices, that would matter a lot.
TIL that robots.txt is a thing
what is it?
robots.txt is a file available in a standard location on web servers (example.com/robots.txt) which set guidelines for how scrapers should behave.
That can range from saying “don’t bother indexing the login page” to “Googlebot go away”.
IT’s also in the first paragraph of the article.
Robots.txt is a file that is is accessible as part of an http request. It’s a backend configuration file that sets rules for what automatically running web crawlers are allowed. It can set both who is and who isn’t allowed. Google is usually the most widely allowed domain for bots just because their crawler is how they find websites for search results. But it’s basically the honor system. You could write a scraper today that goes to websites that it is being told it doesn’t have permission to view this page, ignore it, and still get the information
I do not think it is even part of the HTTP protocol I think it’s just a pseudo add-on. It’s barely even a protocol it’s basically just a page that bots can look at with no really pre-agreed syntax.
If you want to make a bot that doesn’t respect robots.txt you don’t even need to do anything complicated, you just need to not include the requirement to look at the page. It’s not enforceable at all.
just wait until you hear about humans.txt, it really exitst here
Also, by the way, violating a basic social contract to not work towards triggering an intelligence explosion that will likely replace all biological life on Earth with computronium, but who’s counting? :)
That would be a danger if real AI existed. We are very far away from that and what is being called “AI” today (which is advanced ML) is not the path to actual AI. So don’t worry, we’re not heading for the singularity.
I request sources :)
https://www.lifewire.com/strong-ai-vs-weak-ai-7508012
Strong AI, also called artificial general intelligence (AGI), possesses the full range of human capabilities, including talking, reasoning, and emoting. So far, strong AI examples exist in sci-fi movies
Weak AI is easily identified by its limitations, but strong AI remains theoretical since it should have few (if any) limitations.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_general_intelligence
As of 2023, complete forms of AGI remain speculative.
Boucher, Philip (March 2019). How artificial intelligence works
Today’s AI is powerful and useful, but remains far from speculated AGI or ASI.
https://www.itu.int/en/journal/001/Documents/itu2018-9.pdf
AGI represents a level of power that remains firmly in the realm of speculative fiction as on date
Ah, I understand you now. You don’t believe we’re close to AGI. I don’t know what to tell you. We’re moving at an incredible clip; AGI is the stated goal of the big AI players. Many experts think we are probably just one or two breakthroughs away. You’ve seen the surveys on timelines? Years to decades. Seems wise to think ahead to its implications rather than dismiss its possibility.
This is like saying putting logs on a fire is “one or two breakthroughs away” from nuclear fusion.
LLMs do not have anything in common with intelligence. They do not resemble intelligence. There is no path from that nonsense to intelligence. It’s a dead end, and a bad one.
See the sources above and many more. We don’t need one or two breakthroughs, we need a complete paradigm shift. We don’t even know where to start with for AGI. There’s a bunch of research, but nothing really came out of it yet. Weak AI has made impressive bounds in the past few years, but the only connection between weak and strong AI is the name. Weak AI will not become strong AI as it continues to evolve. The two are completely separate avenues of research. Weak AI is still advanced algorithms. You can’t get AGI with just code. We’ll need a completely new type of hardware for it.
Before Deep Learning recently shifted the AI computing paradigm, I would have written exactly what you wrote. But as of late, the opinion that we need yet another type of hardware to surpass human intelligence seems increasingly rare. Multimodal generative AI is already pretty general. To count as AGI for you, you would like to see the addition of continuous learning and agentification? (Or are you looking for “consciousness”?)
That said, I’m all for a new paradigm, and favor Russell’s “provably beneficial AI” approach!
Deep learning did not shift any paradigm. It’s just more advanced programming. But gen AI is not intelligence. It’s just really well trained ML. ChatGPT can generate text that looks true and relevant. And that’s its goal. It doesn’t have to be true or relevant, it just has to look convincing. And it does. But there’s no form of intelligence at play there. It’s just advanced ML models taking an input and guessing the most likely output.
Here’s another interesting article about this debate: https://ourworldindata.org/ai-timelines
What we have today does not exhibit even the faintest signs of actual intelligence. Gen AI models don’t actually understand the output they are providing, that’s why they so often produce self-contradictory results. And the algorithms will continue to be fine-tuned to produce fewer such mistakes, but that won’t change the core of what gen AI really is. You can’t teach ChatGPT how to play chess or a new language or music. The same model can be trained to do one of those tasks instead of chatting, but that’s not how intelligence works.
I remember early Zuckerberg comments that put me onto just how douchey corporations could be about exploiting a new resource.
Ah, AI doesn’t pose as danger in that way. It’s danger is in replacing jobs, people getting fired bc of ai, etc.
Your worry at least has possible solutions, such as a global VAT funding UBI.
Yeah I’m not for UBI that much, and don’t see anyone working towards global VAT. I was comparing that worry about AI that is gonna destroy humanity is not possible, it’s just scifi.
Seven years ago I would have told you that GPT-4 was sci fi, and I expect you would have said the same, as would have most every AI researcher. The deep learning revolution came as a shock to most. We don’t know when the next breakthrough will be towards agentification, but given the funding now, we should expect soon. Anyways, if you’re ever interested to learn more about unsolved fundamental AI safety problems, the book “Human Compatible” by Stewart Russell is excellent. Also “Uncontrollable” by Darren McKee just came out (I haven’t read it yet) and is said to be a great introduction to the bigger fundamental risks. A lot to think about; just saying I wouldn’t be quick to dismiss it. Cheers.
All progress comes with old jobs becoming obsolete and new jobs being created. It’s just natural.
But AI is not going to replace any skilled professionals soon. It’s a great tool to add to professionals’ arsenal, but non-professionals who use it to completely replace hiring a professional will get what they pay for (and those people would have never actually paid for a skilled professional in the first place; they’d have hired the cheapest outsourced wannabe they could find; after first trying to convince a professional that exposure is worth more than money)
It replaced content writers, replacing digital artists, replacing programmers. In a sense they fire unexeprieced ones because ai speeds up those with more experience.
Any type of content generated by AI should be reviewed and polished by a professional. If you’re putting raw AI output out there directly then you don’t care enough about the quality of your product.
For example, there are tons of nonsensical articles on the internet that were obviously generated by AI and their sole purpose is to crowd search results and generate traffic. The content writers those replaced were paid $1/article or less (I work in the freelancing business and I know these types of jobs). Not people with any actual training in content writing.
But besides the tons of prompt crafting and other similar AI support jobs now flooding the market, there’s also huge investment in hiring highly skilled engineers to launch various AI related product while the hype is high.
So overall a ton of badly paid jobs were lost and a lot of better paid jobs were created.
The worst part will be when the hype dies and the new trend comes along. Entire AI teams will be laid off to make room for others.
Those are dangers of capitalism, not AI.
Fair point, but AI is part of it, I mean it exists in capitalist system. This AI Singularity apocalypse is like not gonna happen in 99%, AI within capitalism will affect us badly.
I don’t think glorified predictive text is posing any real danger to all life on Earth.
Until we weave consciousness with machines we should be good.
If it makes you feel any better, my bet is still on nuclear holocaust or complete ecological collapse resulting from global warming to be our undoing. Given a choice, I’d prefer nuclear holocaust. Feels less protracted. Worst option is weaponized microbes or antibiotic resistant bacteria. That’ll take foreeeever.
100%. Autopoietic computronium would be a “best case” outcome, if Earth is lucky! More likely we don’t even get that before something fizzles. “The Vulnerable World Hypothesis” is a good paper to read.
They didn’t violate the social contact, they disrupted it.
True innovation. So brave.
Why should I care about a text file lol
All laws are just words on peices of paper. Why should you care?
This seems to interestingly prove the point made by the person this is in reply to. Breaking laws come with consequences. Not caring about a robots.txt file doesn’t. But maybe it should.
My angle was more about all rules being social contructs, and said rules being important for the continued operation of society, but that’s a good angle too.
Lots of laws don’t come with real punishments either, especially if you have money. We can change this too.
A config* file 😉
Strong “the constitution is a piece of paper” energy right there
hmm, i though websites just blocked crawler traffic directly? I know one site in particular has rules about it, and will even go so far as to ban you permanently if you continually ignore them.
You cannot simply block crawlers lol
hide a link no one would ever click. if an ip requests the link, it’s a ban
If it weren’t so difficult and require so much effort, I’d rather clicking the link cause the server to switch to serving up poisoned data – stuff that will ruin a LLM.
Visiting
/enter_spoopmode.htmlwill choose a theme and mangle the text for any page you next go to accordingly (think search&replace with swear words or santa clause)It will also show a banner letting the user know they are in spoop mode, with a javascript button to exit the mode, where the AJAX request URL is ofuscated (think base64) The banner is at the bottom of the html document (not nesisarly the screen itself) and/or inside unusual/normally ignored tags.
<script type="spoop/text" style='display:block">you are in spoop mode</script>Or have a secret second page that is only followed if you ignore robots.txt
/spoop_post/yvlhcigcigcis a clone of/post/yvlhcigcigcin ‘spoop mode’Would that be effective? A lot of poisoning seems targeted to a specific version of an LLM, rather than being general.
Like how the image poisoning programs only work for some LLMs and not others.
Except that it’d also catch out people who use accessibility devices might see the link anyways, or use the keyboard to navigate a site instead of a mouse.
i don’t know, maybe there’s a canvas trick. i’m not a webdev so i am a bit out of my depth and mostly guessing and remembering 20-year-old technology
last i checked humans dont access every page on a website nearly simultaneously…
And if you imitate a human then honestly who cares.
Well you can if you know the IPs that come in from but that’s of course the trick.
There are more crawlers than I have fucks to give, you’ll be in a pissing match forever. robots.txt was supposed to be the norm to tell crawlers what they can and cannot access. Its not on you to block them. Its on them, and its sadly a legislative issues at this point.
yes but also there’s a point where it’s blatantly obvious. And i can’t imagine it’s hard to get rid of the obviously offending ones. Respectful crawlers are going to be imitating humans, so who cares, disrespectful crawlers will ddos your site, that can’t be that hard to implement.
Though if we’re talking “hey please dont scrape this particular data” Yeah nobody was ever respecting that lol.
Both paragraphs demonstrate gross ignorance
Detecting crawlers can be easier said than done 🙁
i mean yeah, but at a certain point you just have to accept that it’s going to be crawled. The obviously negligent ones are easy to block.
This is a very interesting read. It is very rarely people on the internet agree to follow 1 thing without being forced
Loads of crawlers don’t follow it, i’m not quite sure why AI companies not following it is anything special. Really it’s just to stop Google indexing random internal pages that mess with your SEO.
It barely even works for all search providers.
The Internet Archive does not make a useful villain and it doesn’t have money, anyway. There’s no reason to fight that battle and it’s harder to win.
We need laws mandating respect of
robots.txt. This is what happens when you don’t codify stuffWhy? What would you like to achieve and how would that help?
you can’t really make laws in the united states it’s too hard
The battle cry of conservatives everywhere: It’s too hard!
Except if it involves oppressing minorities and women. Then it’s a moral imperative worth all the time and money you can shovel at it regardless of whether the desired outcome is realistic or not.
Seriously, could the party of “small government” get out of my business, please?
Sure as long as the party of law and order respects law. And order.
I just wish the push and pull of politics didn’t have to be played as a zero sum game. I wish someone could take the initiative and just…
I think both parties in America sing pretty loud about “law and order.” I haven’t heard that cry particularly loudly from either side over the other. I don’t think I’ve heard anyone who claims to be a Democrat saying the end goal is “small government” but I have heard it from Republican voices.
Honestly, I would really prefer if we were in a system that enabled more parties, so we didn’t have “parties” that did such contradictory things as the current ones…
It’s a bad solution to a problem anyway. If we are going to legally mandate a solution I want to take the opportunity to come up with an actually better fix than the hacky solution that is robots.txt
All my scrapping scripts go to shit…please no, I need automation to live…
Sounds like the type of thing that would either be unenforceable or profitable to violate compared to the fines.
Turning that into a law is ridiculous - you really can’t consider that more than advisory unless you enforce it with technical means. For example, maybe put it behind a login or captcha if you want only humans to see it
Are you aware of what “unlisted” means?
Yes, and there’s also no law against calling an unlisted phone number
Also we already had this battle with robots.txt. In the beginning, search engines wouldn’t honor it either because they wanted the competitive advantage of more info, and websites trusted it too much and tried to wall off too much info that way.
There were complaints, bad pr, lawsuits, call for a law
It’s no longer the Wild West:
- search engines are mature and generally honor robots.txt
- websites use rate limiting to conserve resources and user logins to fence off data there’s a reason to fence off
- truce: neither side is as greedy
- there is no such law nor is that reasonable
There’s also no law against visiting an unlisted webpage? What?
AI companies will probably get a free pass to ignore robots.txt even if it were enforced by law. That’s what they’re trying to do with copyright and it looks likely that they’ll get away with it.
I hope not, laws tend to get outdated real fast. Who knows robots.txt might not even be used in the future and it just there adding space because of law reasons.
robots.txt has been an unofficial standard for 30 years and its augmented with sitemap.xml to help index uncrawlable pages, and Schema.org to expose contents for Semantic Web. I’m not stating it shouldn’t not be a law, but to suggest changing norms as a reason is a pretty weak counterargument, man.
robots.txt is a 30 year old standard. If we can write common sense laws around things like email and VoIP, we can do it for web standards too.
You can describe the law in a similar way to a specification, and you can make it as broad as needed. Something like the file name shouldn’t ever come up as an issue.
The law can be broad with allowances to define specifics by decree, executive order or the equivalent.
We don’t need new laws we just need enforcement of existing laws. It is already illegal to copy copyrighted content, it’s just that the AI companies do it anyway and no one does anything about it.
Enforcing respect for robots.txt doesn’t matter because the AI companies are already breaking the law.
I think the issue is that existing laws don’t clearly draw a line that AI can cross. New laws may very well be necessary if you want any chance at enforcement.
And without a law that defines documents like robots.txt as binding, enforcing respect for it isn’t “unnecessary”, it is impossible.
I see no logic in complaining about lack of enforcement while actively opposing the ability to meaningfully enforce.
Copyright law in general needs changing though that’s the real problem. I don’t see the advantage of legally mandating that a hacky workaround solution becomes a legally mandated requirement.
Especially because there are many many legitimate reasons to ignore robots.txt including it being misconfigured or it just been set up for search engines when your bot isn’t a search engine crawler.
I would be shocked if any big corpo actually gave a shit about it, AI or no AI.
if exists("/robots.txt"): no it fucking doesn'tYeah I always found it surprising that everyone just agreed to follow a text file on a website on how to act. It’s one of the worst thought out/significant issues with browsing still out there from the beginning pretty much.
Robots.txt is in theory meant to be there so that web crawlers don’t waste their time traversing a website in an inefficient way. It’s there to help, not hinder them. There is a social contract being broken here and in the long term it will have a negative impact on the web.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
If you hosted your website on your computer, as many people did, or on hastily constructed server software run through your home internet connection, all it took was a few robots overzealously downloading your pages for things to break and the phone bill to spike.
AI companies like OpenAI are crawling the web in order to train large language models that could once again fundamentally change the way we access and share information.
In the last year or so, the rise of AI products like ChatGPT, and the large language models underlying them, have made high-quality training data one of the internet’s most valuable commodities.
You might build a totally innocent one to crawl around and make sure all your on-page links still lead to other live pages; you might send a much sketchier one around the web harvesting every email address or phone number you can find.
The New York Times blocked GPTBot as well, months before launching a suit against OpenAI alleging that OpenAI’s models “were built by copying and using millions of The Times’s copyrighted news articles, in-depth investigations, opinion pieces, reviews, how-to guides, and more.” A study by Ben Welsh, the news applications editor at Reuters, found that 606 of 1,156 surveyed publishers had blocked GPTBot in their robots.txt file.
“We recognize that existing web publisher controls were developed before new AI and research use cases,” Google’s VP of trust Danielle Romain wrote last year.
The original article contains 2,912 words, the summary contains 239 words. Saved 92%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
No laws to govern so they can do anything they want. Blame boomer politicians not the companies.
I think that good behavior is implicitly mandated even if there’s nobody to punish you if you don’t.
Lol
¿Por qué no los dos?
Fhdj glgllf d’‘’‘’'×÷π•=|¶ fkssb
No Idea why you’re getting downvotes, in my opinion it was very eloquently said
Why not blame the companies ? After all they are the ones that are doing it, not the boomer politicians.
And in the long term they are the ones that risk to be “punished”, just imagine people getting tired of this shit and starting to block them at a firewall level…
Because the politicians also created the precedent that anything you can get away with, goes. They made the game, defined the objective, and then didn’t adapt quickly so that they and their friends would have a shot at cheating.
There is absolutely no narrative of “what can you do for your country” anymore. It’s been replaced by the mottos of “every man for himself” and “get while the getting’s good”.
