[HN Gopher] IETF setting standards for AI preferences
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       IETF setting standards for AI preferences
        
       Author : Mithriil
       Score  : 24 points
       Date   : 2025-03-22 13:30 UTC (9 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.ietf.org)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.ietf.org)
        
       | jsheard wrote:
       | I appreciate the effort, but without any legal backing these
       | signals are just going to be ignored like robots.txt. Hell even
       | if they were legally binding they'd probably still be ignored if
       | scrapers thought they could obfuscate the paper trail enough to
       | get away with it.
        
         | felixfbecker wrote:
         | OpenAI and Anthropic respect robots.txt afaik
        
           | mog_dev wrote:
           | They dont.
        
           | Ukv wrote:
           | To add anecdotally based on logging on my portfolio site, all
           | major US players (OpenAI, Google, Anthropic, Meta,
           | CommonCrawl) appeared to respect robots.txt as they claim to
           | do (can't say the same of Alibaba).
           | 
           | Sometimes I do still get requests with their useragents, but
           | generally from implausible IPs (residential IPs, or "Google-
           | Extended" from an AWS range, or same IP claiming to be
           | multiple different bots, ...) - never from the bots' actual
           | published IP addresses (which I did see before adding
           | robots.txt) - which makes me believe it's some third party
           | either intentionally trolling or using the larger players as
           | cover for their own bots.
        
         | Tomte wrote:
         | This is a way to express your reservation, pursuant to Article
         | 4(3) of the EU's DSM Directive.
         | 
         | The legal machinery is already in place, we now need precisely
         | that: a standard for machine-readable reservations.
        
       | elitepleb wrote:
       | DNT: AI
        
       | ddtaylor wrote:
       | Asking people to read your content with a specific purpose or
       | intent has traditionally not been very successful or useful. I
       | understand people are frustrated with the knowledge transfer, but
       | if the goal was to increase the reach of your ideas, it's being
       | accomplished.
       | 
       | AI being involved changes the scale and scope, but it doesn't
       | change the fundamentals. China and India were already imitating
       | and cloning everything for their markets and for ours.
       | 
       | We have had virtually zero success enforcing patent, copyright
       | and barely even the lowest bar trademark enforcement. There may
       | not be any framework for this kind of enforcement that I want to
       | see that would be effective, but I am open to ideas that don't
       | involve government overreach etc.
        
       | adrian_mrd wrote:
       | Does anyone know whether there any licences or licence
       | derivatives - like the various flavors of Creative Commons - that
       | currently restrict usage by AI LLMs?
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2025-03-22 23:01 UTC)