161
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 05 Apr 2024
161 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
37699 readers
235 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
My issue with Kagi is that it relies on aggregate results from other search engine indices
So do DDG and a lot of other search engines. In addition to the time and cost of running a spider and maintaining a database (for little to no technological benefit these days), a lot of server admins will block crawlers that aren't googlebot or msnbot/bingbot.
It has its own index in addition to aggregating results.
Why is that an issue?
I don't get the impression that Kagi intends to compete with major search engines. It is clearly marketed toward privacy-focused, tech-minded individuals. You can take that one of two ways. Either you are frustrated with the erosion of search engine quality due to advertising, or you disagree with the predatory practices such as data mining that comes along with such advertising. In both cases, the only real way to signal to major search engines that you disagree with these practices is to stop using their services (including their APIs).
For example, I have been using DuckDuckGo for decades. At first, I had to compromise search result quality, but now it has enough users and support that results are on-par with the likes of Google.
I do not think that Kagi is bad or that people should not use it. It simply isn't for me, because it does not actually address the reasons I do not use search engines like Google.
Yes, and I largely disagree with it :/
I think you're underestimating how huge of an undertaking a half-decent search index is, much less a good one.
https://stract.com/ is the new kid on the block
Lol. I typed the name of my hometown and the two first results were escort sites from that area.
I mean, either it knows me really well and their privacy claims are wrong 🤭 Or it has a funny way of prioritising indexes.
Thanks
On the other hand, it doesn't really matter so much anymore.
LLM is the new search. I can ask it the actual question I have and it will give me the answer. If it's not exactly what I need I can ask it to specify further.
Contrast that with a search engine that just gives me a ton of bookmarks to sift through to see if they actually might answer my question or are just clickbait.
Of course there's still some times when you need search, like when you need to find an actual website, or when you need a source reference. But really the need for me is greatly reduced now.
Be careful relying on LLMs for "searching". I'm speaking from experience here - getting actually accurate results from the current generation of LLMs, even with RAG, is difficult. You might get accurate results most of the time (even 80% or more), but it can be difficult to identify the inaccurate results due to the confidence models present their output with when hallucinating.
Also, if your LLM isn't doing retrieval-augmented generation (RAG), then it isn't actually a search and won't find results more recent than the data it was trained off of.
I know. But I'm often not really looking for accuracy. I just need to know something for myself. Most of the stuff I look up is absolutely not critically important. It's not like I'm trying to write a PhD dissertation or something.
I know it can be inaccurate but I can verify the results (and they usually are totally fine).
I think it's not that complicated -- Kagi's search results are just far more useful. I think it's marketed at people who want good search results, not anything dealing with privacy (although, Kagi doesn't log your searches, so it's fully private for most everyday definitions) -- your viewpoint for you makes perfect sense to me and sure I respect it, but I don't think it's right to say that people are linking their credit cards to do a have-to-be-logged-in-first search on Kagi chiefly for reasons of privacy focus.
(I just tried the same experiment Doctorow tried, of searching for something that I'd been unable to find through Google, and Kagi did the same thing for me that it did for him (i.e. found it). That's actually not important enough for me to pay for Kagi, but "Google is shit now" is no fringe opinion and it's pretty easy to verify that Kagi does in practice work markedly better.)