Scraper no scraping.
    • reksas@sopuli.xyzEnglish
      24·
      4 小时前

      Ai-generated reply:

      Summaries like this are risky because they replace reading with compression. Important qualifiers disappear, uncertainty gets smoothed over, and the result sounds more confident than the original ever was. That alone already weakens the discussion. Piling automated responses on top of that doesn’t fix the problem—it just adds more distance from the source. The conversation starts orbiting generated text instead of the article itself, until no one involved can clearly say what was actually argued or why. At that point the exchange still looks productive, but it’s mostly just well-formed text responding to other well-formed text.

  • Telorand@reddthat.comEnglish
    1851·
    22 小时前

    Google and other megacorps with AI slopbots: AI bots should be free to slurp up as much data as they want. It doesn’t break copyright!

    Also those companies: Wait, AI isn’t allowed to steal from us!

  • foodandart@lemmy.zipEnglish
    76·
    21 小时前

    From The Verge page: “SerpApi says it can deliver Google search results for use by AI tools, but Google claims it’s illegally evading bot-blockers to steal copyrighted content.”

    Bwahahahah! Oh, now that gave me a great laugh!

      • ayyy@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        1·
        3 分钟前

        This is completely untrue. The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act uses extremely broad wording. People have been sued for right clicking on a webpage and saying “View Source” before. Aaron Schwartz, co-founder of Reddit, was driven to suicide after a harassment campaign by the FBI and scientific paper publishers, as another example.

    • Archer@lemmy.worldEnglish
      5·
      16 小时前

      Can you post the archive link so I don’t have to laugh at The Verge asking for me to give them money for their “journalism”?

  • veee@lemmy.caEnglish
    36·
    22 小时前

    And here I thought the pitch for AI was all about democratizing knowledge. Womp womp.