In the real world, leaving booby traps out that can harm others including the innocent are a liability and regularly a crime in itself.

I wonder how long these sorts of games will play before the law applies itself.

> I wonder how long these sorts of games will play before the law applies itself.

Perhaps roughly as long as the law turns a blind eye to AI corps flagrantly violating the attribution requirements of software licenses that apply to their training data, as well as basically ignoring other copyright requirements at scale. Fair use, my eye.

It's Antropic defrauding people here, the person using it for fighting anti-social behavior (or even a troll doing the anti-social behavior themselves) isn't guilty of it.

>I wonder how long these sorts of games will play before the law applies itself.

Whose law? Good luck trying to summon a random GitHub user to a court within your jurisdiction.

Don't need to. The court can subpoena GitHub to find out who they are, and then can make a default judgement against them and enforce it.

This is extremely naive. If you are in Germany and I am in the US and you get a default judgement against me (which would cost you money to get), good luck getting it enforced internationally. Hint: it's way, way harder than you think.

if someone is trying to use LLM tools in a project that explicitly forbids the use of LLM tools, they are not innocent.

if someone is blinding slurping up content to feed to LLMs, without checking to see if a particular source is OK with that, they are arguably not innocent either.

Neither situation is analogous to a booby-trapped shotgun door blowing off the face of a would-be burglar.

This is a lot closer to a painting of a poop emoji than a booby trap.

I'm not leaving boody traps. I have the right to talk about OpenClaw or even to write the anti antropic string. I didn't delete you token usage or charge you extra boxes. Antropic did.

If tomorrow Antropic decide to charge you extra if you interact with someone who talked badly about them, I'm still in my right to talk shit about them.

This is the same logic of 'not a booby trap' booby trap,s which sometimes do work out in the favor of the one setting them if they weren't too open about it. If your commit message is that you are talking about OpenClaw just to booby trap your repo, then I suspect it wouldn't fly, where as if you gave it some plausible deniability, a lawyer would be able to get any suit or charges dismissed.

This is all under the assumption we eventually live in a world where booby trapping repositories becomes a legal issue. On one hand that feels silly. On the other hand, we have had far less sensible cases make it to court and there is a small kernel of similarity which the legal system might latch onto.

If someone doesn't want you to use AI on their repository, they state it. And if they want to "booby trap" (Antropic logic), them it's they right, you have been warned.

I can't see how you rights to use AI is prevalent on the right of anybody to write the string "OpenClaw" or any string forbidden by your AI provider.

Seriously, if the author hides it and trick your AI agent to check it, well maybe. But otherwise, it's not even a question.