We should start to add “ai.txt” as we do for “robots.txt”

Re:We should start to add “ai.txt” as we do for “robots.txt” by rhn_mk1 on Wednesday May 10, 2023 @10:42AM (#35888090)

I agree with you when you talk about places where companies can bully people just by threatening to sue them, and where the defender must have lots of money even if they are clearly in the right.

But AI does not change anything there. The problem of being sued into oblivion despite being right exists there even without it.

In places where defending does not cost money, this works out in favor of the individuals.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:We should start to add “ai.txt” as we do for “robots.txt” by gavinhoward on Wednesday May 10, 2023 @12:06PM (#35889377)

"AI" changes things by making it even harder for individuals to defend against.

Right now, we have FOSS organizations that will help you in lawsuits against companies that don't follow licenses. With "AI" in the picture, companies can launder your code with "plausible" deniability. [1]

[1]: https://matthewbutterick.com/chron/will-ai-obliterate-the-ru...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:We should start to add “ai.txt” as we do for “robots.txt” by rhn_mk1 on Thursday May 11, 2023 @03:21AM (#35898876)

On the other hand, you can take some (closed?) code a company wrote, feed it into AI, and launder it for your purpose. While this is not a symmetric exchange, it does reduce the power of copyright for everyone.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:We should start to add “ai.txt” as we do for “robots.txt” by gavinhoward on Friday May 12, 2023 @11:22AM (#35917501)

Sure, if you can get your hands on it and if the company doesn't sue you for doing so.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:We should start to add “ai.txt” as we do for “robots.txt” by rhn_mk1 on Friday May 12, 2023 @03:53PM (#35921438)

Check out what I wrote two posts above. If them suing you is a problem then you have trouble in your legal system regardless of copyright.

[ Parent | on HN ]