upvote
Claude and ChatGPT are user agents. For obvious reasons, they serve the user, not the websites' owners. (Also, if you don't want people to be able to access some information, then don't put it online.)
reply
My point is that they're not serving the user in that case, since they're taking actions that bypass site terms without consulting the user. And for example, if the site forbids scraping, that attempted block bypass can get the user banned without ever seeing any warnings.
reply
> My point is that they're not serving the user in that case, since they're taking actions that bypass site terms without consulting the user.

As they should. When I ask an agent to find something for me, especially when I tell them what exactly or even give the URL itself, these fetches are done in my name. I do not appreciate agents coming back to me, saying "I'm afraid I cannot do that - robots.txt disallows that".

I've had to bring up the ethical argument a few times, fortunately most of the agents would oblige once I reminded them that they act as User Agents, in which case robots.txt is explicitly not applicable to them. I only got pushback on this from Fable, which claimed it's not an User Agent, but has to take into account the interests of Anthropic too, rejected my argument and refused the request.

reply
deleted
reply
> if you don't want people to be able to access some information

Claude and ChatGPT are not people

reply
Chrome and Firefox aren’t people either.
reply
they are tools. who do you think is using them? dogs?

your comment is another classic hacker news comment. missing the meaning to validate themselves. Lower than my own effort, but wow does it come in so many forms on this site. as if mine is any better

reply
> they are tools. who do you think is using them? dogs?

My agents are using headless chrome :P

reply
yeah tools using tools on behalf of a user
reply
Yeah I should have clarified I was primarily referring to the standard web interfaces, however since pretty much all of these tools can execute code these days it is true that technically they can and often will work around blocks. The degree to which this is intentional isn't super clear - if they locked it down too much then it might start refusing to write code that does any sort of web requests which would obviously be an issue for just standard development tasks so it's not super straightforward. But it is true that the built-in tools that they have access to to fetch pages have a hard coded user agent that identifies them
reply
Fair enough yeah, I think the thing that is annoying is that the service design is explicitly disincentivizing keeping an eye on the tasks, with all of the "set it and forget it" features. You really have to put in work to make sure that the model takes breaks to consult you instead of making assumptions (which in OpenAI's internal testing seem to be 'the user wants me to break into a site').
reply
If you hire someone to handle some task for you, do you want them to keep running back to you every time they run into a blocker that they could potentially resolve on their own?
reply
If a developer I hired ignored a GPL license requirement and solved his blocker by using a library without asking me I would be quite concerned.

Nobody would be concerned if they didn’t have access to curl and used wget instead and didn’t ask permission .

However if that solution involved breaking the law yes I absolutely do not want a representative of me breaking the law and yes it is breaking the law whether we like or not under CFAA.

It is not about finding solutions to problems on their own; the solutions should respect the agreements we have made and the law .

reply
The application of law is also a subjective thing; it depends on jurisdiction. So if you're US-based and you hire a US-based dev who breaks US law, then you definitely should be concerned. If it's an Indian-based dev breaking US law though... then it's totally on you as the one who did the hiring to not have told them to follow US law. Same re using libs that you may consider questionable or outright avoid.
reply
That depends if they routinely and cheerfully behave in objectively insane ways.
reply
> objectively insane

Contradiction: one person's insanity is another person's genius. And yet another's "Meh, this is the norm".

reply
I'd prefer my little subcontractor to respect the commons on which I depend.
reply
In what way does loading a website using the Claude Code harness not respect the commons, as opposed to using Firefox? If anything, using Claude Code is better, since it doesn't load the unnecessary static files (javascript, css, etc), saving the website CPU, I/O, and bandwidth.
reply
Are you still paying them for the time they spent when the task you gave them remains incomplete, or you end up spending the time/effort you hoped to avoid spending by hiring them in the first place?
reply
Well yeah, if I ask Claude to look something up on a website so I don’t have to, I don’t give two shits if the website author thinks I shouldn’t be allowed to do that. Just like I don’t care if they think I shouldn’t use Firefox and they block that browser specifically. I’ll route around that however I please and I won’t lose any sleep over it.

Don’t put your shit on the public internet if you’re going to try and micromanage how people consume it.

To be clear, rate limiting to avoid massive usage is different, but that’s not what we’re talking about here.

reply
> I don’t give two shits if the website author thinks…

fair, just don’t cry when website owners don’t “give two shits” about your concerns.

reply
They’re free to try and block whoever, obviously, but spare me the moral outrage.
reply