61–70 of 271 posts
Where does SEO end and AI slop begin?
Does it matter? I want neither in my search results. Human slop is no better than AI slop.
Where does SEO end and AI slop begin?
Hopefully, we'll just blacklist SEO spam at the same time. Slop is slop regardless of origin.
User curated links, didn't we have that before, Altavista?
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Explicitly in the article, one of the headings is "AI slop is deceptive or low-value AI-generated content, created to manipulate ranking or attention rather than help the reader." So yes, they are proposing marking bad AI content (from the user's perspective), not all AI-generated content.
Which troubles me a bit, as 'bad' does not have same definition for everyone.
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 am not, because it's anti-human. I am a human and therefore I care about the human perspective on things. I don't care if a robot is 100x better than a human at any task; I don't want to read its output.
Same reason I'd rather watch a human grandmaster play chess than Stockfish.
How does this work? Kagi pays for hordes of reviewers? Do the reviewers use state of the art tools to assist in confirming slop, or is this another case of outsourcing moderation to sweat shops in poor countries? How does this scale?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Explicitly in the article, one of the headings is "AI slop is deceptive or low-value AI-generated content, created to manipulate ranking or attention rather than help the reader." So yes, they are proposing marking bad AI content (from the user's perspective), not all AI-generated content.
Which troubles me a bit, as 'bad' does not have same definition for everyone.
I take it to mean they’re targeting that shit specifically and anything else that becomes similarly prevalent and a plague upon search results.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If your wife can't detect that you told your secretary to buy something nice, should she care?
This is an absurd comparison - you (presumably) made a commitment to your wife. There is no such commitment on a public blog?
I made no commitment that says I won't intensely stare at people on the street. But I just might be a jerk if I keep doing it.
"You're not wrong, Walter. you're just an asshole."