AmbitiousProcess (they/them)

This whole article is just a condescending mess.

“Why does everyone who has been repeatedly burned by AI, time and time again, whether that be through usable software becoming crammed full of useless AI features, AI making all the information they get less reliable, or just having to hear people evangelize about AI all day, not want to use my AI-based app that takes all the fun out of deciding where you go on your vacation???”

(yes, that is actually the entire proposed app. A thing where you say where you’re going, and it generates an itinerary. Its only selling point over just using ChatGPT directly is that it makes sure the coordinates of each thing are within realistic travel restrictions. That’s it.)

That anybody can access them if they’re smart enough?

Not all cameras have security vulnerabilities. Assuming it’s a matter of “smarts” is ridiculous. Plain old traffic cameras that solely detect speeding, especially those installed without additional “smart” features like Flock’s, rarely have breaches, because they are by their very nature quite simple systems.

I’m not saying it’s impossible, or that cases don’t exist, but I’ve seen far more harm come from actual, preventable traffic deaths than I’ve seen from hacked speeding cameras. I’ve seen zero instances of that being used to cause harm, thus far.

You clearly are fine being surveiled though

I am not. That is why I am clearly advocating solely for systems with a design that reduces the chances of remote access, can’t engage in mass surveillance, and only send data on those actively speeding, while never transmitting anything about literally everybody else. Have you even read my comments?

You clearly don’t get my points, I’m sorry if I’m somehow not explaining them clearly enough, but fine, I’m done. You win, or whatever. Good job.

Or, why not just build roads that inhibit speeding

As I already stated, doing that is not quick, easy, or cheap. Mounting a camera to a pole is much more cost effective, and quick to set up in the short term, even if it’s not the ideal long-term solution.

They’ve been proven to reduce speed, injuries, and deaths, and there’s vanishingly few cases in which regular, non-“smart” traffic cameras operating under the technological standards I mentioned have ever been utilized for any form of surveillance that produced a measurable harm for any individual, that I could find. That is why I advocate for those, not for “smart” ones like Flock’s.

I don’t think it should be a permanent solution, but I’d rather have speed cameras now, with road improvements later, over zero measures to prevent speeding now, with the hope that traffic calming infrastructure will be feasible and actually get done later down the line. Infrastructure isn’t free, and cameras aren’t either, but cameras are a hell of a lot cheaper.

Maybe police should go back to being visible on the street to control driver behavior

I’d rather avoid inflating police budgets if I can help it. Especially since such a system then lends itself to those same cops advocating for increased surveillance measures because it makes their job easier. They’re the people who wanted the built-in ALPR systems, after all.

city road design be built around calming traffic patterns

100% agree. Yet while I want these to be more widespread, they take money, time, and lots of urban planning. In the meantime, I see traffic cameras (specifically those NOT integrated with ALPR systems that store locations in a central database) as a good stopgap solution for areas that don’t yet/can’t build out those measures in a reasonable timeframe.

instead of using completely undercover normal looking vehicles for traffic enforcement and then raking in millions of dollars by sitting on their ass and letting the camera do all the work?

Also agreed. The pigs don’t need more money for doing less work, hence why I think the prior idea of having them be visible is still a bad idea, because they can simply sit there and… also do nothing.

And if they set quotas, then the measure becomes a goal, and it ceases to be a good measure, as cops will just pull more people over because it “seemed like they were going fast”, and everyone’s days get just a little bit worse.

There are obviously alternatives, I don’t deny that. But as good as infrastructure and cultural improvements can be, it doesn’t change the fact that speeding cameras have proven themselves to be immensely effective, and don’t require massive infrastructure projects, much more costly spending, and long-time cultural shifts. That’s just the unfortunate reality of the situation.

I’m a big digital rights and privacy advocate, and I don’t advocate for “spy cameras.” I advocate for privacy-preserving systems that improve society when they can exist in such a way.

A camera that only sends your plate to a police system when you speed, and automatically sends you a ticket for endangering other people is not a surveillance system. It’s a public safety measure, with justifiable, minimum data transmission requirements to operate effectively. A system that tracks every location your plate was seen is a surveillance system. That is not what non-“smart” traffic cameras are.

Speeding cameras are the first system, unless integrated with an ALPR system, in which case they become a surveillance system. I am advocating for the former, not the latter.

Edit: For everyone downvoting me, please read my follow-up responses. I’m not advocating for surveillance, I’m advocating for privacy-preserving systems that simply send a ticket if you speed, without recording your location every single time you pass any camera, rather than a system that does, because that’s actually a surveillance network.

As much as it’s true that a lot of these cameras are just becoming other ways to engage in surveillance, it’s also true that they do a lot to manage speeding. For example, NYC had a 94% reduction in speeding in areas with the cameras. It’s also true that most existing speed cameras simply aren’t equipped to be converted into ALPR systems. Most ALPR deployments are done via the installation of brand-new hardware, which many places simply can’t justify the additional, new costs of.

This can be done with minimal surveillance capabilities, and often is in many places. (local compute board identifies license plates, calculates speeds, sends them to an isolated cloud service, and only forwards data to the police department if it was actually a speeding infraction, otherwise the data is wiped) The ALPR cameras are primarily being installed in specific areas, but aren’t always across-the-board implementations, and sometimes avoid entire cities.

For example, ALPRs are becoming popular around Washington, but the Seattle police department only has a few ALPRs solely mounted on vehicles, but zero mounted in stationary locations. (“SPD’s ALPR cameras are not fixed in location”) These aren’t even used for speeding cases, but are used for missing vehicle cases, and the speeding cameras are entirely separate.

It doesn’t make sense to eliminate all cameras, even the speeding ones, just because other cameras can be ALPRs. We should simply advocate for removing ALPRs, not speeding cameras. This is why organizations like the EFF, dedicated to protecting people’s privacy, have previously argued against these cameras broadly not because speeding cameras are also bad, but because the way those speeding camera systems were designed allowed them to also be used as ALPRs. However, I haven’t seen a single case of them arguing against cameras that are solely speeding cameras with limited capacity for surveillance, because it’s just not a very big issue.

Sorry, long rant 😅

There’s a reason so many people who suffer from chronic loneliness are told to first join some kind of socially-integrated hobby, activity, or group: Doing something you already enjoy, in the company of other people who enjoy the same thing, is likely to bring you people you are more likely to vibe with.

One of the best possible ways to start actually finding people you enjoy being around is to go to activities that involve people with a similar set of interests to you. For example, if I go to my local hackerspaces/makerspaces, I’m going to find a fuck ton of people who are interested in the same technology as me, and that means I’m probably gonna find people that have similar interests overall.

The main problem is that with the major reduction in third places, and with things becoming more and more costly to do, (e.g. my nearest makerspace costs over $100/mo to be a part of) it’s hard to actually get into those social circles where you can meet people that you’ll actually like being around.

And it’s more expensive than the most expensive US mobile plan, which would have faster speeds, whereas Trump Mobile’s drops off after a certain (lower than T-Mobile’s own plans) amount of GB data usage since they’re solely using T-Mobile as an MVNO, and also has deprioritized data speeds during periods of network congestion.

It would also get you the ability to switch underlying network providers if you’re in a dead zone, international calling and data in more locations, better customer support given all the experiences we’ve seen from reviewers, and unlimited hotspot data, plus better bundle deals for families or people with smart watches that need separate data.

Hell, even T-Mobile’s own own plans, which are usually substantially more expensive than other companies they solely act as an MVNO for, like Mint Mobile, (which is actually owned by T-Mobile now) which will get you the same value as T-Mobile’s $50/mo plan in a $30/mo plan that is just $15/mo for new users for up to a 12 month period.

Trump Mobile is just $2.55 cheaper than T-Mobile’s $50 plan.

potentially possible
necessarily required

I can understand that a lot of people would not want a machine that can’t play their favorite game. I think it’s a bad idea to simply shame them for wanting a machine that can play a game they want to play.

I think it’s good to shame the developer and platform that make it so locked-in to the Microsoft ecosystem in the first place.

But if the Steam Machine works for you, as it will for my uses, then I think it’s good to support it as an alternative.

It runs autonomously to a degree, but a lot of these sites operate via posting a wide variety of content on the same domains, after those domains have previously gained status in search engines.

So for example, you’ll have a site like epiccoolcarnews[.]info hosting stuff like “How to get FREE GEMS in Clash of Clans” just because previously they posted an article about cars that Google thought was good so they ranked up the domain in their ranking algorithm.

Permanently downrank the domain, and eventually they have to start with a new domain that, as is the key part here, has no prior reputation, and thus has to work to actually get ranked up in search again.

They’re also going to be making this a public database, and have said they’ll use it to train AI-generated content detection tools that will probably be better at detecting “AI generated articles meant to appear legitimate by using common keywords and phrases”, rather than just “any text of any form that has been generated by AI” like other AI detection tools do, which would make them capable of automating the process a bit with regard to specifically search engines.

They also literally just released SlopStop as a community-based filtering mechanism that’ll downrank AI slop, with the CEO saying “We believe AI slop is an existential threat to an internet that should belong to humans. This is the first step towards our ultimate goal: to kill AI slop so you never see it again.”

Apparently they’ll be using this to train something that can identify AI slop better based on the database of user-reported sites, and they’ll be making the database open.

Their AI integration philosophy feels incredibly reasonable to me with how out of the way it is, how it properly cites its sources and shows how much of the answer each one influenced, and how the search results are often so good it doesn’t even feel like you need the AI model, and this just sweetens the deal.

I can understand having issues with Kagi, they’re a company, after all, but their stance and actions feel very good thus far.

There’s a lot of issues with that analysis.

Oh and they own a t-shirt factory

The linked article literally states that they partnered with a small print shop, not that they own it. It says they bought warehouse space to store and fulfill orders. Now granted, yes, spending that much money on T-shirts can be a bad idea financially, but they do act as marketing because they get people talking, even if the brand name isn’t on the shirt. This recoups the cost over time.

Kagi also heavily relies on organic marketing, so it makes total sense.

First of all, as a project, Kagi stretches itself way too thin. “Kagi” isn’t just Kagi Search, it’s also a whole slew of AI tools, a Mac-only web browser called Orion, and right now they are planning on launching an email service as well.

The AI tools are easily deployed and based on standard open-source tooling. Not that hard to maintain, yet their AI integrations are genuinely much better than the competition, which draws in a lot of people who pay for their higher-priced plan just for heavy AI users.

Orion is a fork, with minimal additional bloat. Again, not terribly hard to maintain.

None of these projects are particularly profitable, so it’s not a case of one subsidizing the other

Their entire business model is based around a subscription. No individual service is “profitable,” it’s just “part of what you get for your subscription.”

and when they announced Kagi Email even their most dedicated userbase (aka the types who hang around in a discord for a search engine) seemed largely disinterested.

Granted, though the hardest part for this is just making a frontend, which they’ve already done. There are many free and open source backends for hosting email services. They haven’t promoted it heavily, and my assumption is because they’re keeping it more on the down-low until they fix bugs, build out more features, and are sure it’s something they can more heavily advertise.

Kagi was not paying sales tax for two years and they finally have to pay up. They just…didn’t do it. Didn’t think it was important? I have no idea why. Their reactions made it sound like they owed previous taxes, not that they just now had to pay them. They genuinely made it sound like they only just now realized they needed to figure out sales tax. It’s a baffling thing to me and it meant a change in prices for users that some people were not thrilled with.

And they later explained it’s because there’s a threshold of buyers you have to pass before paying sales tax, and they did not know if they would ever pass that mark, and later had to scramble due to new user growth to make that happen.

Like most search now Kagi has chosen to include Instant Answers that are AI generated, which means they’re often wrong

The vast majority of my answers from Kagi’s AI were right, when other search engines were all wrong. (yes, I did actually check real sources to confirm) This is just a strawman of reality. Kagi even shows you what % of the LLM’s response was derived from which source, whereas others leave you in the dark.

But the developers of Kagi fully believe that this is what search engines should be, a bunch of AI tools so that you don’t even need to read primary sources anymore.

Oh, is that why Kagi said in the post also linked by the author of that post: “Large language models (LLMs) should not be blindly trusted to provide factual information accurately. They have a significant risk of generating incorrect information or fabricating details”, “AI should be used to enhance the search experience, not to create it or replace it”, and “AI should be used to the extent that it enhances our humanity, not diminish it (AI should be used to support users, not replace them)”

I’m not gonna keep going through every single thing point-by-point here since that’d take forever, but a lot of this is basically just taking minor issues, like the CEO posting about hopeful uses of AI, or talking about completely normal expectations to have of privacy when you trust a company with information, then blowing it out of proportion and acting as though this is a death blow for the service.

The author of the post quite literally talks about how “Kagi’s dedication to privacy falls apart for me”, saying they don’t seem to actually care about user privacy… when just a few months later, they released Privacy Pass, which allows you to cryptographically prove you have a membership without revealing your identity, and to continue using Kagi that way. Not really something someone who doesn’t care about privacy would do.

Overall, this just reads to me as:

1. They could be doing bad financially because of these decisions I didn’t like them doing
2. Okay so they said they were profitable currently even after all that but now they’re doing too many things (which could all bring in new users that would pay them)
3. Okay so people are paying for and using the things but there’s no way they could possibly use AI in any good way
4. I’ve now ignored anybody saying the tools are actually better than others or are working well, but just in case you’re not convinced, they don’t care about privacy!
5. I know they explained the ways in which companies are going to get data on you and there is going to be a degree of trust when using a service that requires things like payment information but I still think they don’t actually care about privacy!

I’m not saying all the points are completely false or don’t mean anything, but a lot of this really does feel like just taking something relatively small (giving out a bunch of T-shirts during a time the company is primarily trying to grow its user count via organic marketing), acting as though it’s both the current and permanent future position of the entire company and will also lead to the worst possible outcome, then moving on to another thing, and doing that until there’s nothing left to complain about.

Kagi can have its own problems, but a lot of these just aren’t it.

As a person using Kagi myself:

1. The search results are the best I’ve ever had. period, full stop.
2. The AI models are commonly correct, good at citing sources, out of the way till you ask for them, and feel secondary to the search experience
3. The cost is more than reasonable
4. Regular small updates with new tools have been incredibly nice to have (such as the Kagi news feed, which is great at sourcing good news from a variety of sources, or the Universal Summarizer, which is great at providing alternative, more natural sounding and accurate translations compared to Google Translate or DeepL)

I haven’t really had any complaints, and contrasting it with this guy’s post, it just reads like someone complaining about something they’ve never even used. Yes, you can complain about something you haven’t yourself used, but the entire post is just “here’s anything even minor that I think could be an issue if it were taken to the extremes”

Kagi has a great little feed you can use to randomly explore smallweb blogs. I’d recommend it!

https://kagi.com/smallweb/

As an example, here’s this site dedicated to cataloguing the different variations of Disney park trash cans!
https://www.magicaltrash.com/

the article says they’re comparing it to their earnings and likelihood to switch jobs among other things.

Two things that are coincidentally lower (in terms of pay) and higher (in terms of propensity to switch jobs) for black people, rather than white people.

They just use the buzzword “AI”, but in reality it’s probably going to be a machine learning algorithm.

Take the dataset, split out the groups of people you do/don’t want to hire based on whatever criteria, train the model to be more likely to pick faces with characteristics from the “do hire” group, and less likely to pick those from the “don’t hire” group.

Then, use it on real people, and it will provide similar outcomes based on faces.

The study claims that they analyzed participants’ labor market outcomes, that being earnings and propensity to move jobs, “among other things.”

Fun fact, did you know white men tend to get paid more than black men for the same job, with the same experience and education?

Following that logic, if we took a dataset of both black and white men, then used their labor market outcomes to judge which one would be a good fit over another, white men would have higher earnings and be recommended for a job more than black people.

Black workers are also more likely to switch jobs, one of the reasons likely being because you tend to experience higher salary growth when moving jobs every 2-3 years than when you stay with a given company, which is necessary if you’re already being paid lower wages than your white counterparts.

By this study’s methodology, that person could be deemed “unreliable” because they often switch jobs, and would then not be considered.

Essentially, this is a black box that gets to excuse management saying “fuck all black people, we only want to hire whites” while sounding all smart and fancy.

A great Medium article on the topic that analyzes the entire situation: (coming to the conclusion that no, Proton does not really seem to be in favor of Trump/MAGA at all given their actual actions, and how the original statement was misinterpreted)

https://medium.com/@ovenplayer/does-proton-really-support-trump-a-deeper-analysis-and-surprising-findings-aed4fee4305e

And even if it’s never political, so what?

Someone uses it to promote a dangerous supplement, with thousands of fake, AI-generated videos of people taking it without issues, and suddenly a bunch of people buy it, take it, and suffer severe consequences, or even die.

But good thing it’s not gonna manipulate who you’d vote for amirite? Totally harmless! /s

Oh, of course the legislation is to blame for a lot of this in the end. I’m just saying that Discord could have already partnered with a number of identity verification services that do already have this infrastructure up and running, with standardized and documented ways to call their APIs to both verify and check the verification of a user.

At the end of the day, Discord chose to implement a convoluted process of having users email Discord, upload IDs, then have Discord pull the IDs back down from Zendesk and verify them, rather than implementing a system where users could have simply gone to a third-party verification website, done all the steps there, had their data processed much more securely, then have the site just send Discord a message saying “they’re cool, let 'em in”