GPT-4o: Yes, AI makers should honor robots.txt instructions. Here are several reasons why: Ethical & Legal Considerations, Trust, and Internet Standards.

Question 1 of 2 for ChatGPT-4o: Please read the article “Exclusive: Multiple AI companies bypassing web standard to scrape publisher sites, licensing firm says” and tell me what it says

ChatGPT-4o’s answer:
The article "Exclusive: Multiple AI companies bypassing web standard to scrape publisher sites, licensing firm says" by Katie Paul, published on June 21, 2023, highlights the issue of artificial intelligence companies circumventing the Robots Exclusion Protocol (robots.txt) to scrape content from publisher websites without permission.

Key points from the article:

1. Circumvention of Web Standards: AI companies are ignoring the robots.txt protocol, a common web standard used by publishers to block the scraping of their content. This protocol, established in the mid-1990s, indicates which parts of a site can be crawled by web crawlers. Although there's no legal enforcement mechanism, there's been widespread compliance historically.

2. Public Disputes: The issue has come to light amid a public dispute between AI search startup Perplexity and media outlet Forbes. Forbes accused Perplexity of plagiarizing its investigative stories in AI-generated summaries without proper citation or permission. Investigations revealed that Perplexity likely bypassed robots.txt to access Forbes' content.

3. TollBit's Role: TollBit, a content licensing startup, is positioning itself as an intermediary between AI companies and publishers. It aims to facilitate licensing deals by tracking AI traffic on publishers' websites and using analytics to determine appropriate fees for different types of content. TollBit has identified that numerous AI agents, not just Perplexity, are bypassing robots.txt.

4. Impact on Publishers: The bypassing of robots.txt by AI companies allows them to scrape content for training their algorithms and generating real-time summaries. This has led to legal and financial disputes between tech firms and publishers. Some publishers, like The New York Times, have sued AI companies for copyright infringement, while others have signed licensing agreements despite disagreements over the value of the content.

5. Google's AI Summaries: Google has introduced a product that uses AI to create summaries in response to search queries. To prevent their content from being used in these summaries, publishers must use the same robots.txt tool, which also prevents their content from appearing in Google search results, thus reducing their visibility on the web.

Overall, the article underscores the ongoing tension between AI developers and content publishers over the use and value of online content in the age of generative AI.

Question 2 of 2 for ChatGPT-4o: Should the AI makers keep to the rules and honour robot.txt instructions, yes or no? What should be the sanction for acting in breach of robot.txt messages?

ChatGPT-4o’s answer:
Yes, AI makers should honor robots.txt instructions. Here are several reasons why:

1. Ethical Considerations: Respecting robots.txt is an ethical practice that acknowledges the rights of content creators and publishers to control the use of their content.

2. Legal Implications: Ignoring robots.txt can lead to legal disputes, as seen in the lawsuits filed by publishers like The New York Times against AI companies for copyright infringement.

3. Trust and Collaboration: Honoring these instructions builds trust between AI developers and content publishers, facilitating potential licensing agreements and collaborations.

4. Internet Standards: Following established web standards ensures a harmonious and functional web ecosystem.

Sanctions for Breaching Robots.txt Instructions

To enforce compliance, several sanctions could be considered:

1. Monetary Fines: Imposing fines proportional to the extent of the breach and the value of the misused content could deter non-compliance.

2. Access Restrictions: Persistent offenders could be temporarily or permanently blocked from accessing publisher sites.

3. Legal Actions: Publishers could take legal action for copyright infringement, leading to court-ordered penalties.

4. Public Disclosure: Publicizing violations could damage the reputation of the offending AI companies, impacting their user trust and market value.

5. Licensing Requirements: Enforcing stricter licensing requirements for access to online content could ensure that AI companies adhere to legal and ethical standards.

Implementing these sanctions would require collaboration between publishers, legal authorities, and regulatory bodies to establish clear guidelines and enforcement mechanisms.