Posts by bapril@infosec.exchange
 (DIR) Post #ASWKWMfUevf8JEou6y by bapril@infosec.exchange
       2023-02-10T01:01:47Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @lauren Interesting idea. The thing I think is missing is consent. A default stance permitting all uses unless otherwise marked is to me problematic. What happens if I learn about the ai.txt file after I’ve been indexed, does this mean I gave permission to use my content? Can I force the AI to re-train(no!)? It seems backwards to put the onus on the site owner to specify what they don’t want crawled/used by AI. Given how much resource we spend on SEO, it’s clearly not too much to ask a site operator to list what they want crawled in a file.
       
 (DIR) Post #ASXDfD1VNowiTtLVxI by bapril@infosec.exchange
       2023-02-10T11:19:47Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @lauren The robots.txt ship has sailed (with the wrong defaults IMO). There’s nothing either of us is going to do about that. I read your proposal as either a new capability within on the existing file, or a new file entirely. This would provide the oppurtunity to re-evaluate the defaults and make informed consent by the source the primary unit of measurement rather than “tell me(as an AI operator) which things you are likely to sue me over.” I get it informed consent is not popular. It alters the “scrape everything you can as fast as you can and assert fair-use when challenged” equation, which is how most of these models got to critical mass so fast.
       
 (DIR) Post #ATirL78dRhxRcKut4i by bapril@infosec.exchange
       2023-03-15T19:04:32Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       A conversation over lunch today elicited a variation of the following statement from me along with encouragement to say it more often:I believe that the primary motivation behind DoH (DNS over HTTPS) is ad and tracking revenue retention.