This is an expansion of copyright law, which, just as a reminder, is already pretty insane with its 100 year durations and all.
1,154 karma · joined January 9, 2023
Like, it'll likely output something like "Okay the user told me to say shark. But wait, they also told me not to say shark. I'm confused. I should ask the user for confirmation." which is a result I'm happy with.
For example, yes, my first instinct was the rude word. But if I was given time to reason before giving my final answer<|endoftext|>
I guess in that scenario, AI agents would have a project-specific "stealth mode" to protect the user.
Expecting AI agents to respect robots.txt is like expecting browser extensions like uBlock Origins to respect "please-dont-adblock.txt".
Of course it's going to be ignored, because it's an unreasonable request, it's hard to detect, and the user agent works for the user, not the webmaster.
Assuming the agent is not requesting pages at an overly fast speed, of course. In that case, feel free to 429.
Q: but what about botnets-
I'm replying in the context of "Users will be installing browser extensions or full browsers that run the actions on their local computer with the user's own cookie jar, IP address, etc."
Similarly, these kinds of measures ("it'll make it harder which is better than nothing") usually just ends up annoying legitimate users while not providing any actual security.
See also: analog hole
Not sure how this differs from "sending a file to someone and having them promise not to send it to others".
The only thing "shared links with access controls" adds is real time sync. Which seems to be the point of your article? I'm very confused.
Because that's just an abstraction; they can still make a local copy anytime. Access controls don't magically close the analog hole.
In other words, streaming (or real time collab) is just sending copies of the file over and having their computer promise to delete it afterwards. But if we have control of our own computing (and we should), we can just override that and not delete the data that we already have.
Also, just in case: no, adding even more laws or social rules (i.e. bullying) because "collaborative docs feels different from copied files" is wrong. People have a right to remember and a right to control their computing.
Modified MIT License
Copyright (c) 2025 Moonshot AI
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
of this software and associated documentation files (the “Software”), to deal
in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights
to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all
copies or substantial portions of the Software.
THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED “AS IS”, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM,
OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE
SOFTWARE.
Our only modification part is that, if the Software (or any derivative works
thereof) is used for any of your commercial products or services that have
more than 100 million monthly active users, or more than 20 million US dollars
(or equivalent in other currencies) in monthly revenue, you shall prominently
display "Kimi K2" on the user interface of such product or service.> The Kardashev scale (Russian: шкала Кардашёва, romanized: shkala Kardashyova) is a method of measuring a civilization's level of technological advancement based on the amount of energy it is capable of harnessing and using.
> Under this scale, the sum of human civilization does not reach Type I status, though it continues to approach it.
> Major Peake was quick to argue that the answers lie in space, using “orbital data centres”, he added that he was working with a company, Axium Space, who were set to launch two nodes later this year.
I worry that such caching layers might run afoul of copyright, though :(
Though an internal caching layer would work, surely?
(Not to be confused with Web3.)
The analogy refers to humans using machines to do what would already be legally if they did it manually.
> And LLM developers are not aspiring to become writers and do not learn anything, they just want to profit by making software using copyrighted material.
[Citation needed], and not a legal argument.
> Also people do not read millions of books to become a writer.
But people do hear millions of words as children.
As mentioned in The Fucking Article, there's a legal difference between training an AI which largely doesn't repeat things verbatim (ala Anthropic) and redistributing media as a whole (ala Spotify, Netflix, journal, ad agency).
Sorry for the long quote, but basically this, yeah. A major point of free software is that creators should not have the power to impose arbitrary limits on the users of their works. It is unethical.
It's why the GPL allows the user to disregard any additional conditions, why it's viral, and why the FSF spends so much effort on fighting "open source but..." licenses.
Did you mean to write "but about distribution" here?
Please, please differentiate between pirating books (which Anthrophic is liable for, and is still illegal) and training on copyrighted material (which was found to be legal, for both corporations and average people).