AI scrapers request commented scripts

(cryptography.dog)

255 points ColinWright | 1 comments | 31 Oct 25 15:44 UTC | HN request time: 0.207s | source

Show context

bakql ◴[31 Oct 25 18:41 UTC] No.45775259[source]▶

>These were scrapers, and they were most likely trying to non-consensually collect content for training LLMs.

"Non-consensually", as if you had to ask for permission to perform a GET request to an open HTTP server.

Yes, I know about weev. That was a travesty.

replies(15): >>45775283 #>>45775392 #>>45775754 #>>45775912 #>>45775998 #>>45776008 #>>45776055 #>>45776210 #>>45776222 #>>45776270 #>>45776765 #>>45776932 #>>45777727 #>>45777934 #>>45778166 #

sdenton4 ◴[31 Oct 25 19:57 UTC] No.45776055[source]▶

>>45775259 #

The problem is that serving content costs money. Llm scraping is essentially ddos'ing content meant for human consumption. Ddos'ing sucks.

replies(2): >>45776078 #>>45778039 #

2OEH8eoCRo0 ◴[31 Oct 25 20:00 UTC] No.45776078[source]▶

>>45776055 #

Scraping is legal. DDoSing isn't.

We should start suing these bad actors. Why do techies forget that the legal system exists?

replies(3): >>45776275 #>>45780013 #>>45780643 #

1. ColinWright ◴[31 Oct 25 20:21 UTC] No.45776275[source]▶

>>45776078 #

There is no way that you can sue the people responsible for DDoSing your system. Even if you can find them ... and you won't ... they're likely as not either not in your jurisdiction (they might be in Russia, or China, or Bolivia, or anywhere) and they will have a lot more money than you.

People here on HN are laughing at the UKs Online Safety Act for trying to impose restrictions on people in other countries, and yet now you're implying that similar restrictions can be placed on people in other countries and over whom you have neither power nor control.

↑