Strawmen. They aren't arguing that any automated tool should be suspect. They are arguing that an automated tool with sufficient computing power should be suspect. By Perplexity's reasoning, I should be able to set up a huge server farm and hit any website with 1,000,000 requests per second because 1 request is not seen as harmful. In this case, of course, the danger with AI is not a DOS attack but an attack against the way the internet is structured and the way website are supposed to work.
> This overblocking hurts everyone. Consider someone using AI to research medical conditions,
Of course you will put medical conditions in there: appeal to the hypothetical person with a medical problem, a rather contemptible and revolting argument.
> This undermines user choice
What happens to user choice when website designers stop making websites or writing for websites because the lack of direct interaction makes it no longer worthwile?
> An AI assistant works just like a human assistant.
That's like saying a Ferarri works like someone walking. Yes, they go from A to B, but the Ferarri can go 400km down a highway much faster than a human. So, no, it has fundamental speed and power differences that change the way the ecosystem works, and you can't ignore the ecosystem.
> This controversy reveals that Cloudflare's systems are fundamentally inadequate for distinguishing between legitimate AI assistants and actual threats.
As a website designer and writer, I consider all AI assistants to be actual threats, along with the entirety of Perplexity and all AI companies. And I'm not the only one: many content creators feel the same and hope your AI assistants are neutralized with as much extreme prejudice as possible.