| ▲ | lxgr 5 hours ago | |
> [...] when a source is guaranteed to be LLM-free, like the entire history of kernel commits [...] Is that really the case? It was my understanding that LLM-based agents were explicitly allowed as long as their users follow certain guidelines [1]? And more generally: Somehow the theory of "essentially all bot traffic is AI labs crawling the Internet for LLM training data" doesn't make sense to me at all. There are at best dozens of labs capable of running their own crawl at Internet scale, but hundreds of millions of people using LLMs to answer their questions. (If my personal LLM usage is any indication, firing off dozens or hundreds of web fetches to answer a single question is not unusual.) While I understand that many existing projects have been resourced only for human readers and might as a result be struggling due to this, this characterization sounds a bit dishonest to me. And unfortunately, for this use case (i.e. ephemeral queries in a context possibly lacking storage or git access), forking the individual repo to answer a handful of string match queries against it might just be more expensive than to run that query against a web search index and then just fetch those results over HTTP. The solution would accordingly also look very different, as caching at the inference layer is significantly harder than at the training one (where it's most likely already widely done as that seems like a no-brainer). | ||