I am seeing from these comments that my proposed solution was pretty naïve. I intended this blog post to be a sort of thought experiment to challenge assumptions made about the web pre-AI rather than my thought up technical solution to be the main focus.

I might go back and re-write some of this post to gear the focus more towards my main points of the social contract between bot and human shifting (especially with copyleft/ShareAlike), the web becoming less “open”, how this is not a new idea since the DMCA already considers standards for automated access, etc.

Its a link to my blog post:

agamsingh9.codeberg.page/posts/ai-web-scrapers/

Is the link not working?

I think a better one is acceptance of change.

• Right: Resistant to change
• Left: Accepting of change

Sometimes change is good, sometimes the world is not ready. I think this aligns closely with “cynical” and “naïve” but just makes it more abstract.

I remember the name of the fallacy for this one! It’s called “correlation, not causation”. If thing X is correlated with thing Y and we agree that thing Y is bad, that does not necessarily mean thing X is bad. If you want to attack thing X, you have to give reasons why X is bad or why X leads to Y, not just that the two are correlated. This is not to mean that correlation is useless–if Communism (X) is heavily correlated to death and suffering (Y), and we both agree that Y is bad, it is a signal that it could be useful to look into whether X causes Y and, if so, why/how.

I’ve never heard of someone coming back from brain dead. Is this the first recorded case?

I was almost done writing my blog post addressing the same issue! I’ll give this a read to make sure I don’t re-say anything you did. The state site generator I use (Hugo) also looks very similar to yours lol.

I forget what the fallacy is called, but basically just because thing X is associated with Y and Y is bad doesn’t make X bad. If a communist leader killed people, it doesn’t necessarily mean communism is the reason he killed them.

In the same vain saying fascism is bad “because Hitler was a fascist” would also be a logical fallacy. Hitler also drank water but that doesn’t mean water is bad.

I’m not arguing semantics. “The left” and “authoritarianism” are different things. No one said anything about Democrats or Republicans. You are arguing that this is a problem with “the left”. If you want to argue that this is a problem with Democrats or with authoritarianism in the either party specifically, that’s a separate topic–one that I agree with.