41–50 of 271 posts
The same company that slopifies news stories in their previous big "feature"? The irony.
Been using Kagi for two years now. Their consistent approach to AI is to offer it, but only when explicitly requested. This is not that surprising with that in mind.
Kagi News does not disclose AI even.
Though I'm still pissed at Kagi about their collaboration with Yandex, this particular kind of fight against AI slop has always striked me as a bit of Don Quixote vs windmill. AI slop eventually will get as good as your average blogger. Even now if you put an effort into prompting and context building, you can achieve 100% human like results. I am terrified of AI generated content taking over and consuming search eng…
> Even now if you put an effort into prompting and context building, you can achieve 100% human like results. Are we personally comfortable with such an approach? For example, if you discover your favorite blogger doing this.
I think I am comfortable with some level of AI-sharing rudeness though, as long as it's sourced/disclosed.
I think it would be less rude if the prompt was shared along whatever was generated, though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Been using Kagi for two years now. Their consistent approach to AI is to offer it, but only when explicitly requested. This is not that surprising with that in mind.
> Their consistent approach to AI is to offer it, but only when explicitly requested. Kagi News does not disclose AI even.
The same company that slopifies news stories in their previous big "feature"? The irony.
I think you're referencing https://kite.kagi.com/ In my view, it's different to ask AI to do something for me (summarizing the news) than it is to have someone serve me something that they generated with AI. Asking the service to summarize the news is exactly what the user is doing by using Kite—an AI tool for summarizing news. (I'm a Kagi customer but I don't use Kite.)
Where's the part where you ask them to do this? Is this not something they do automatically? Are they not contributing to the slop by republishing slopified versions of articles without as much as an acknowledgement of the journalists whose stories they've decided to slopify?
If they were big enough to matter they would 100% get sued over this (and rightfully so).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> AI slop eventually will get as good as your average blogger. Even now if you put an effort into prompting and context building, you can achieve 100% human like results. In that case, I don't think I consider it "AI slop "—it's "AI something else ". If you think everything generated by AI is slop (I won't argue that point), you don't really need the "slop" descriptor.
Then the fight Kagi is proposing is against bad AI content, not AI content per-se? Then that's very subjective...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you're referencing https://kite.kagi.com/ In my view, it's different to ask AI to do something for me (summarizing the news) than it is to have someone serve me something that they generated with AI. Asking the service to summarize the news is exactly what the user is doing by using Kite—an AI tool for summarizing news. (I'm a Kagi customer but I don't use Kite.)
https://news.kagi.com/world/latest Where's the part where you ask them to do this? Is this not something they do automatically? Are they not contributing to the slop by republishing slopified versions of articles without as much as an acknowledgement of the journalists whose stories they've decided to slopify? If they were big enough to matter they would 100% get sued over this (and rightfully so).
It's a tool. Summarizing the news using AI is the only thing that tool does. Using a tool that does one thing is the same as asking the tool to do that thing.
> Are they not contributing to the slop by republishing slopified versions of articles without as much as an acknowledgement of the journalists whose stories they've decided to slopify?
They provide attribution to the sources. They're listed under the headline "Sources" right below the short summary/intro.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://news.kagi.com/world/latest Where's the part where you ask them to do this? Is this not something they do automatically? Are they not contributing to the slop by republishing slopified versions of articles without as much as an acknowledgement of the journalists whose stories they've decided to slopify? If they were big enough to matter they would 100% get sued over this (and rightfully so).
> Where's the part where you ask them to do this? Is this not something they do automatically? It's a tool. Summarizing the news using AI is the only thing that tool does. Using a tool that does one thing is the same as asking the tool to do that thing. > Are they not contributing to the slop by republishing slopified versions of articles without as much as an acknowledgement of the journalists whose stories they've…
> They provide attribution to the sources. It's listed under the headline "Sources" and is right below the short summary/intro.
No, they attribute it to publications, not journalists. Publications are not the ones writing the pieces. They could easily also display the name of the journalist, it's available in every RSS feed they regurgitate. It's something they specifically chose not to do. And then they have the balls to start their about page about the project like so:
> Why Kagi News? Because news is broken.
Downvote me all you want but fuck them. They're very much a part of the problem, as I've demonstrated.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Even now if you put an effort into prompting and context building, you can achieve 100% human like results. Are we personally comfortable with such an approach? For example, if you discover your favorite blogger doing this.
Should we care? It's a tool. If you can manage to make it look original, then what can we do about it? Eventually you won't be able to detect it.