516
submitted 1 year ago by L4s@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

BBC will block ChatGPT AI from scraping its content::ChatGPT will be blocked by the BBC from scraping content in a move to protect copyrighted material.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Hubi@feddit.de 92 points 1 year ago

Makes sense, OpenAI will probably have to apply for a TV-license first.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

I don't live in the UK, but I would gladly pay the TV license fee, or even a premium on top of it, if I had unlimited access to iPlayer. My only option right now is BritBox, which is not great and not really worth the money.

[-] jaackf@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago

Just VPN to the UK and then tick the box which says you have a TV license? Or there are other ways to get the content most likely! 🏴‍☠️

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

VPNs are always blocked in my experience.

[-] csm10495@sh.itjust.works 75 points 1 year ago

I wonder if anyone thinks robots.txt is binding or not ignored by anyone who wants.

[-] lemmyvore@feddit.nl 46 points 1 year ago

OpenAI will have to deal with a lot of lawsuits in the future. Robots.txt may not be legally binding but disobeying it after claiming otherwise would go a long way towards establishing intent.

[-] andrew@lemmy.stuart.fun 16 points 1 year ago

I mean, under the CFAA you could probably pretty easily pursue charges when explicitly deauthorizing certain agents from accessing your data. Plenty of people have been threatened and prosecuted for less.

https://www.nacdl.org/Landing/ComputerFraudandAbuseAct

[-] totallynotfbi@lemm.ee 6 points 1 year ago

I mean, you could just block OpenAI's crawlers' IP addresses, if you wanted to

[-] Noite_Etion@lemmy.world 61 points 1 year ago

Big businesses wont lift a finger to halt global warming, but the second their precious copyrights are attacked they go into full force.

[-] Moneo@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

I mean, yeah? Corporations are always going to act in their best interest, that's why regulation exists.

[-] netchami@sh.itjust.works 40 points 1 year ago
[-] porkins@sh.itjust.works 34 points 1 year ago

I’d rather have ChatGPT know about news content than not. I appreciate the convenience. The news shouldn’t have barriers.

[-] netchami@sh.itjust.works 48 points 1 year ago

But ChatGPT often takes correct and factual sources and adds a whole bunch of nonsense and then spits out false information. That's why it's dangerous. Just go to the fucking news websites and get your information from there. You don't need ChatGPT for that.

[-] echodot@feddit.uk 14 points 1 year ago

So they have automated Fox then.

[-] netchami@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 year ago

Yeah, pretty much.

[-] guacupado@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

More data fixes that flaw, not less.

[-] netchami@sh.itjust.works 19 points 1 year ago

Not too long ago, ChatGPT didn't know what year it is. You're telling me it needs more data than it already has to figure out the current year? I like AI for certain things (mostly some programming/scripting stuff) but you definitely don't need it to read the news.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] CurlyMoustache@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago

It is not "a flaw", it is the way language learning models work. They try to replicate how humans write by guessing based on a language model. It has no knowledge of what is a fact or not, and that is why using LLMs to do research or use them as a search engine is both stupid and dangerous

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Natanael@slrpnk.net 3 points 1 year ago

It's not more data, the underlying architecture isn't designed for handling facts

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Apollo@sh.itjust.works 26 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Who get their news from chatgpt lol

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

A disturbing number of people.

[-] spez_@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago
[-] Apollo@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 year ago
[-] prashanthvsdvn@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago

It’s funny seeing Apollo and spez_ fighting on a topic regarding ChatGPT.

[-] Apollo@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago

Natural enemies must fight

[-] abhibeckert@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Because ChatGPT doesn't do clickbait headlines or have auto-play video ads, auto play video news that follows me if I try to scroll past it, or a house ad that tries to convince me to stop reading the news and instead read a puff piece about how to clean my water bottle. Which I'd bet fifty bucks will result in me seeing ads for new water bottles every day for the next month. No thanks.

With the "Web Browsing" plugin, which essentially does a Bing search then summarises the result, ChatGPT is a far better experience if you want to find out what's going on in Israel today for example.

[-] Ad4mWayn3@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Neither does lemmy, here (and in other instances) there's plenty of communities for news, and with better control of misinformation.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] C4d@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The pure ChatGPT output would probably be garbage. The dataset will be full of all manner of sources (together with their inherent biases) together with spin, untruths and outright parody and it’s not apparent that there is any kind of curation or quality assurance on the dataset (please correct me if I’m wrong).

I don’t think it’s a good tool for extracting factual information from. It does seem to be good at synthesising prose and helping with writing ideas.

I am quite interested in things like this where the output from a “knowledge engine” is paired with something like ChatGPT - but it would be for eg writing a science paper rather than news.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] C4d@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Exactly. The data harvest has had years in the making.

[-] patawan@lemmy.world 25 points 1 year ago

Curious what the mechanism for this will be. CAPTCHA can sometimes be relatively easy to pass and at worst can be farmed out to humans.

[-] Cqrd@lemmy.dbzer0.com 33 points 1 year ago

ChatGPT took down its Internet search to implement a robots.txt rule it would obey and allow content providers time to add it to their lists. This was done because they were being used to get around paywalls. So it’s actually very easy for them to do this for ChatGPT, specifically, which makes articles like this ridiculous.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] Snowplow8861@lemmus.org 20 points 1 year ago

When the horses have all bolted, BBC is the one to close the barn door.

[-] HorseRabbit@lemmy.sdf.org 16 points 1 year ago

Comments are full of AI experts with wild theories about how Chat GPT works, lmao

[-] BreadstickNinja@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

The number of people with strong opinions on AI vastly exceeds the number of people who understand transformers architecture.

[-] callmepk@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago

Also FYI, you can see what some of the most popular websites that already blocked ChatGPT: https://wayde.gg/websites-blocking-openai

[-] xenomor@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

It should be illegal for entities like BBC to do this. Copyright is meant to be a temporary, limited construct that carves out an opportunity for creators to profit from their works. It is not perpetual legal dominion over specific ideas. Entities that harvest content to train LLMs should pay for access like everyone else, but after that, they can use the information they learn however they see fit. Now, if their product plagiarizes, or doesn’t properly attribute authorship, that is a problem. But it’s a different issue from what the BBC is fighting here.

I think there are some content creators that believe they are owed royalties if you even think about a piece they wrote or drew. That is, of course, absurd in terms of human minds. It’s also absurd in terms of other kinds of minds.

[-] hazelnot 17 points 1 year ago

Counter-point: everyone should block AI shit, fuck the laws

[-] regbin_@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

You got that backwards. Fuck copyright. Nothing should be copyrighted.

[-] hazelnot 3 points 1 year ago

I agree. Nothing should be copyrighted. But everyone should try their hardest to stop "AI" scammers and the surveillance apparatus as a whole

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] NightLily@lemmy.basedcount.com 9 points 1 year ago
[-] NightLily@lemmy.basedcount.com 5 points 1 year ago

These things should not at all be scraping without express permission of the author or the company who owns the work. It’s just completely wrong for them to do as such.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] uriel238 4 points 1 year ago

Not for long. AI knows how to lie.

[-] flossdaily@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

This is a bit like companies blocking Google from their websites.

You're only hurting yourself.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 08 Oct 2023
516 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

60009 readers
1941 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS