Earlier quoted context omitted.
They offer most models from the large AI players (anthropic, openai, mistral, meta, grok, google, deepseek)
Why would you use Kagi instead of any of these models directly?
They're also free.
Chatbots are replacing Google's search, devastating traffic for some publishers
241–250 of 254 posts
Re: Chatbots are replacing Google's search, devastating traffic for some publishers
#242Earlier quoted context omitted.
I never really bought the idea of any AI company killing Google. They have too much momentum to really be seriously impacted, too many people who only use them exclusively and will continue to do so their whole lives on the name brand alone. They might risk a lack of "growth" but that only really matters to shareholders, not to end users.
Yahoo had 90%+ of the search market and they lost it in a few years to google because they were unable to innovate. I don't think anyone saw that coming. Everyone was building "portals" (remember those? AOL.com? I think verizon.com was one at some point with news and weather) to try and compete with Yahoo's dominance in search. It can happen again. LLM Chat is certainly an existential threat to the googs. Part of the…
The major flaw in your argument is that Yahoo is still around. They still have tons of traffic, some of the most in the world, just behind Reddit. They are not constantly growing, yes, but that is exactly my point. They have a satisfied userbase who will use them for life as does Google. Neither is going anywhere any time soon. Both make billions of dollars annually.
Re: Chatbots are replacing Google's search, devastating traffic for some publishers
#243Well I didn’t expect some good coming from the ai revolution and yet. If it helps to annihilate the « news » sites that depended over advertisement to be profitable, that’s great. Advertisement and journalism should never have been in the same sentence, no one can provide full independent news when you’re at the mercy of advertiser threatening to bail out if you say something bad on them.
There are two choices here: 1. Create an elite only product that’s way too expensive for the general public. 2. Subsidize the costs of the newsroom with some form of advertising. There’s several of different forms that can take. That’s the trade off. You can make it but there really is a need for ad supported reporting. For what it’s worth I’ve been in this business 15 years and can’t name a single incident of your i…
> For what it’s worth I’ve been in this business 15 years and can’t name a single incident of your influence scenario.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_proprietor
Its mostly a business with very little profit, why all these wealthy men buy more and more newspapers ? Media is the third power after politician and justice, it’s a well known fact.
And they don’t need to intervene directly, the lead editor in these companies just know that there are some subject he shouldn’t speak about or speak in a specific way if he wants to keep his job, get bonus, etc.
Believing it doesn’t interfere with the editorial line is naive, they wouldn’t build empire of news media if they couldn’t benefit from it.
Re: Chatbots are replacing Google's search, devastating traffic for some publishers
#244Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do you define what is needed? The vast majority of reporting does not affect one's own behaviour at all. For example, consider the Snowden leaks, I guarantee you the vast majority of people did not even attempt to modify their own behaviour at all in light of this new information--despite having read or heard about it. I'd argue that this reporting was still needed, despite it having very little material impact o…
Almost all news has very little material impact on one's life which is why it is treated as entertainment when targeting consumers. The Snowden leaks was an entertaining story that would be easily monetizable.
Can you answer the question?
Re: Chatbots are replacing Google's search, devastating traffic for some publishers
#245In the old days - back before smartphones, back before widescreen monitors, back before broadband - the "Links" section was always a key part of any site. After spending time on a site, a visitor could find links to other pages - some of them on the same topic, some of them simply enjoyed by the creator of the site they were on. If one were to visualize the concept, they might well say that this formed a "web" of sor…
They were called webrings.
Active webrings still exist surprisingly:
Re: Chatbots are replacing Google's search, devastating traffic for some publishers
#246Google's demise is self-inflicted. They broke search by prioritising ads, then trusting the wrong, big publishers (eg every listacle from a big media network), broke their advanced search controls (domain blacklists, quotes that mean quotes, plus-and-minuses to alter things). Then they added their own LLM's analysis to searches, admitting that that their SERPs are dead. They were in this death-spiral well before LLMs…
They've shown in their other products that they really don't even care anymore. Roughly 30% of the YouTube ads I get served recently are 10minutes long or more. At least once a day I feel like I'm reporting some 50+ minute long alternative medicine scam ad.
I'm surprised Googles ad business stays afloat. It seems every video I watch on YouTube is preceded with a Grammarly advert, a service I have no use for and will not subscribe to/pay for in the future.
I feel like Google should be the one company that has enough data and the widespread scope to really excel in advertising, yet on every site I see their ads, its as if they have no idea who I am and what I might want.
Feels like a bubble to me..
Re: Chatbots are replacing Google's search, devastating traffic for some publishers
#247Earlier quoted context omitted.
They could simply restore the search quality they had in 2010. No one wants these "AI" summaries except for people looking to get promoted for "having an impact" inside Google. What Google is doing right now is sabotage the search moat they do have. They are throwing it all away because of some "AI" rainmakers inside the company.
they are losing more and more search to “AI.” my 12-year old never uses Google and couple of times I asked her to “Google it” she literally rolled on the floor laughing and called me a “boomer” :)
[deleted]
Re: Chatbots are replacing Google's search, devastating traffic for some publishers
#248Earlier quoted context omitted.
they are losing more and more search to “AI.” my 12-year old never uses Google and couple of times I asked her to “Google it” she literally rolled on the floor laughing and called me a “boomer” :)
I wonder if "boomer" is going to become a generic term for "my parents' generation".
Already has been for a while now. Also just anyone that isn’t hip to the latest trend of the day.
Re: Chatbots are replacing Google's search, devastating traffic for some publishers
#249Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, unfortunately for those saying AIs will only get better, advertising is a major reason we should expect them to get worse.
With the huge usage that LLM APIs are getting in all sorts of industries, they cannot be going away, and they're cheap. If consumer AI chatbots get enshittified, you can just grab some open source bring-your-api-keys front-end, and chat away for peanuts without ads or anything anti-user. I use https://github.com/sigoden/aichat , but there are GUIs too. Plus, anyone enterprising can just write a web front-end and sell…
But what if the AI output contains ads, not the UI or whatever...
Re: Chatbots are replacing Google's search, devastating traffic for some publishers
#250Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the conclusion is that changing your business model in a reactive way to internet developments is a bad idea if you want to have a stable business. If you want to run your business that way, you better be on top of everything and you better be lucky. They rode the social media wave and lost, and now they are going to try to ride the AI wave because they don't have anything to fall back on. They are going to l…
> People will pay for it. I would love it if it were true, but sadly, the data doesn't support this. A lot of local newspapers did real journalism relevant to their communities. However, the local newspapers were the hardest hit by the social media wave and few remain today. Fast forward to now, you cannot get any real local news easily. The avg person never really valued real journalism to begin with and the hyper t…
There generally hasn't been a way to buy just the local news, so who knows. I emphasize "news", rather than "newspaper", here.
I gave up on the local papers because they contained more Reuters and New York Times wire stories than any actual local content. That was two decades back. I don't think they were willing to give up on the business model of being an aggregator.
This seems a common enough complaint that there is a Texas news company that simply called itself Local News Only, and there are a few other similar names: https://localnewsonly.com/