It is a 100% not open-source. It won't be maintained besides pull-requests AND if another company or individual develops this further, it can not be used commercially by anybody else but the company who released this. It this fair? Open source goes both ways.
You misunderstood me. I am grateful they are sharing the source code for review. My problem is with the wording. Open source means something different by definition. If they leave this project in the dust and someone else continues to maintain it, because he depends on it, this would be illegal and they could sue if they want years later. With open source this can not happen to you. It is a huge difference.
An Internet rails against political correctness, forgetting that it's not 1996 anymore. Some Hackernews decry the woke mob. No technology is discussed.
Of course not, but the language police don't care about disabled people.
These are the same people who publish "inclusive language guides" with garbage like "don't use the term Brainwave because it's dehumanizing to people with intellectual disabilities".
It's an entire R&D field dedicated to finding new and creative ways to be offended.
Ah, so when you said "they" your pronoun didn't match your antecedent. Makes sense considering no one on this site seems to know what a pronoun even is anymore.
I appreciate the optimism but to me this should have been you essay about the good of the internet. I'm convinced it would be worth reading. If you wrote it, I wont see it because that is how certain people like it.
My lengthy rant in response would likely be about the almost impossible puzzle of logistics, the access to the vast ocean of knowledge that humanity has accumulated and the organization of this complete mess that is civilization.
We have plenty of stuff, we just cant get it to the right place at the right time. We know plenty of stuff but we cant get it to the right person at the right price. We really want to make this democracy thing work but despite our effort we keep getting sausages filled with you don't want to know.
My definition of a huge success is different. Maybe I'm wrong for thinking we could do more with the tool. If I'm wrong I don't want to hear it :-)
I don't think the issue is LLMs inherently, it's the misapplication. Kagi has siloed the LLM content into the 'Quick Answer' and 'Assistant' sections, and it generates on the fly from search results. (Plus, the 'Expert' LLM cites the references it used.) I think the issue will come when there isn't a clear delineation between real and artificial text, or when artificial text is presented more prominently than real text, as in the article.
It's not the same. Kagi is trying out multiple products including ones that depend on LLMs (eg. a summarizer). But they're not changing the core web search product by inserting these alternate features. If they do, I'll cancel my subscription and I think others will, too. Since Kagi is supported by user subscriptions instead of ads, they'll have to pay attention to that or collapse.
reply