human context/memory could just be an Agents.md file too that gets read instantly before your next token prediction runs. The AI can make multiple such memory files and read on demand depending on what the topic is, kind of like how as a human when you try to remember a math problem you don't go to your childhood bicycling Agents.md file either.
Now, to tell you the truth, for a lot of tickets AI does generate legit the better answers than me. And my time is quite limited.
That said, I will always stand behind my posts, AI-assisted or not.
Now the thread you specifically point at here is ironic in many ways. The other guy says "and claude won't tell you that", while in fact Claude said (in my response) the exact thing he claimed Claude would not be able to do. Anyways, the technical merrits of the conversation are certainly worthwhile and important.
I seriously cannot fathom how a person chooses to use an LLM to write an Internet comment, so out of genuine curiosity, what drives a person to do that?
Do you somehow find yourself with hundreds of comments to write and nary a moment to spare? Do you genuinely think Claude can better answer questions in your domain of expertise than you can? Is English a second language and not one you're comfortable writing in?
There are courses on how to use an LLM to better market to people, to do PR, to communicate with other people. Grifters don't care about the human aspect or whatever, their goal is to grift. Comments and other text are just a means to an end (money).
I just don't understand how they can think that not giving me a single free search per month is a good idea. I used Kagi when they still had a free plan and it was fine but I still preferred Google. Now I can't even try it again to see if it has additional value.
As a business you don't want to serve everyone. That's why many companies after a while raise their prices, even if that prices out the enthusiast market they served at the beginning so they can go further up market.
Often times it does not make sense to serve free users who are often causing more hassle than it's worth. Having a free trial and then either converting users or not makes sense, but serving a user who uses it for a few queries every month ("I check every few months and only do a few searches at most") potentially does not exactly make sense business wise or even warrant the time building that free tier for an audience that's not willing to pay anyway.
Not promising it would work, but I would email support and ask to have the trial reset for your account. Companies are usually cool to restart trials if you ask.
I don't need a trial reset, I never used mine yet. I want to compare searches between Kagi and Google every few months to see if it got better. I used to recommend Kagi to people but when it's completely behind a paywall it's not easily recommendable anymore.
But as I read the OP it is that he objects to the barrier of entry. He would prefer (possibly very harsh) rate limiting over the hassle of registrering an account. Maybe combined with a weak "nag" screen.
It might be hard implementing in a bulletproof way as IP restrictions are easy to circumvent. But it might be "good enough" to drive more adoption.
I'm a bit on the fence. It would be an interesting experiment.
This approach ignores 99% of the value of Kagi. Google provides atrocious results compared to Kagi once you've taken a few minutes to use the basic Kagi features.
I agree that AI audio interfaces will be the future but not because they are better UIs for users as we understand the term "user" today. The future users of UI are not users of UI at all, they want nothing to do with learning UI or what buttons to press or where to type something. They want to go to the shopping site and instead of typing anything into a search field they want to say "Find me some boots for the summer, I wanna look fresh" and then tell it to complete the purchase via voice as well once it found something. At most they'll still click some filters in the results page and on individual results but that will be it.
Kind of incredible how consistently terrible Google is at everything they do in the AI space. So they choose this demo and write a big blog post and advertise.. and the demo is horrible, doesn't work. Doesn't track what I circle with the mouse, just apparently where the mouse pointer landed at the end and only exactly where it landed. Multiple times it said "Got it, I'll move this empty space between the clouds over here" or "Got it, I'll convert this empty area to a sunhat" despite my mouse only being a few pixels next to an actual hat.
I think bullshittery is generally underestimated as a threat and not new at all. There are entire global organizations like Scientology who are founded on bullshitting. Entire product lines, food categories and industries made for no benefit to you except the thinnest layer of taste to bullshit your senses into accepting the trash into your body or life. Bullshitting just like lying isn't merely something a few percent of bad people do, the majority of individuals seems to do it every single day. It's pervasive in all of society, it's on every level, up from the lowest to the highest levels of political office.
Absolutely, it's been part of humanity since well before before Ea-nasir was dealing his copper. Maybe I'm being too optimistic of human nature, but I'd like to think most of the time we don't do it concisely. I think a lot of it is earnest things we've convinced ourselves of. Now we have a have a massive industry dedicated to programs that are amazing from certain perspectives but can bullshit at a unprecedented scale. Does GenAI really change things? Maybe not fundamentally but it certainly makes it a lot easier to bullshit even if people don't mean to. The well meaning people with bad ideas are still gonna have those. Maybe an LLM will convince them it's bad (or more likely play along), but the not so well meaning people now have new tools that they can explicitly use to extend their abilities.
I'm in many public chat communities as well and the issue whether someone is an AI or not is not really coming up, I've not seen any actual AI chatters and the only AI spam that exists is the one that humans regurgitate. The more real impact AI has on chat communities in my opinion is that people are shifting some of their chatting to AI bots via voice or text on other platforms, resulting in fewer chatters.
well then let's wait a month or even two months. The point of the wait period is primarily to avoid the new installation of exploits, not the execution of already installed exploits.
reply