There are many ways to restrict access. Use one of them. But if you respond to an anonymous http request with content then it shouldn’t matter if it’s a robot looking at it or a human (or a man or a woman or whatever).
I think this both for simplicity and that I foresee a future where human consciousness is simulated and basically an AI. I don’t want to have rules that biological humans can view and digital humans can’t.
Practically speaking, that's the only effective solution. I just think that it's a shame that's necessary. It would be better for everyone if there wasn't a disincentive to making works publicly available.
> I don’t want to have rules that biological humans can view and digital humans can’t.
This is a point we disagree on.
And "digital humans"? I would argue that such a thing can't exist, if you mean "human" in any way other than rough analogy.
While I’m sure others than you share this opinion, I don’t think it’s as uniform as the more common “shorten/rationalize copyright terms and fair use” crowd “we.”
I consider myself a knowledge worker and a pretty staunch proponent of floss and am perfectly fine with training AI on everything publicly available. While create stuff, I don’t make a living off selling particular copies of things I make, so my self preservation bias isn’t kicking in as much as someone who does want to sell items of their work.
But I also made some pretty explicit choices in the 90s based on where I thought IP would go so I was never in a position where I had to sell copies to survive. My decision was more pragmatic first and philosophical second.
I think someone entering the workforce now probably wants to align their livelihood with AI training on everything and not go against that. Even if US/Euro law limits training, there’s no way all other countries are going to, so it’s going to happen. And I don’t think it’s worth locking down the world to try to stop AIs from training on text, images, etc.