But with the rise of AI, the dynamic is changing: We are observing a significant increase in request volume, with most of this traffic being driven by scraping bots collecting training data for large language models (LLMs) and other use cases. Automated requests for our content have grown exponentially, alongside the broader technology economy, via mechanisms including scraping, APIs, and bulk downloads. This expansion happened largely without sufficient attribution, which is key to drive new users to participate in the movement, and is causing a significant load on the underlying infrastructure that keeps our sites available for everyone.

- https://diff.wikimedia.org/2025/04/01/how-crawlers-impact-the-operations-of-the-wikimedia-projects/

This is part of the larger problem that AI tools are trained on (and profit off of) content that is produced and hosted by others who are now seeing their traffic change from humans to bots. For content sources that pay for hosting with ads, this means a loss in revenue to pay for hosting. For content sources like Wikipedia, they are seeing their hosting costs increase significantly due to the increase in bot traffic. Even if you want every website that depends on ad revenue to fail (which I don’t entirety agree with), AI is still damaging the open web in other ways. Websites like Wikipedia for example may soon be forced to lock content behind logins or leverage aggressive captchas just to fight the bot traffic, which makes things worse for those of us that still prefer to use actual websites over AI summaries.

An infestation implies they’re not supposed to be there.

Alternate headline: Alligators survive 36 hours in human infested swamp

Ah, that explains it. Trump is just trying to beat Reagan’s record.

This is a helpful article, but this part of the post seems a bit misleading:

[…] falling behind competitors such as Waymo, NAVYA, and Volvo, who all have Level 4 cars in production.

The article explains that Level 4 cars are only allowed in geofenced areas with low speed limits, which limits the use case to urban robo-taxis. The article also says:

While the future of autonomous vehicles is promising and exciting, mainstream production in the U.S. is still a few years away from anything higher than Level 2.

I don’t say this to defend Tesla. Setting aside the obvious political issues, you are right that Tesla’s FSD claim is dangerously misleading, and Tesla has been consistently failing to keep its promised timelines for improving.

I say this because I am really excited by the idea of fully self driving cars (though I hope they don’t remove the steering controls like the article suggests), and for a second I thought other commercial vehicle options had made significantly improved self-driving available. Unfortunately, the improvements seem to be limited to ride-sharing applications for now.

deleted by creator

The title could really use an extra comma and some quotation marks…