Comment by InsideOutSanta 5 days ago
I'm scared that this type of thing is going to do to science journals what AI-generated bug reports is doing to bug bounties. We're truly living in a post-scarcity society now, except that the thing we have an abundance of is garbage, and it's drowning out everything of value.
I mean Kagi is probably the PageRank revival we are talking about.
I have heard from people here that Kagi can help remove slop from searches so I guess yeah.
Although I guess I am DDG user and I love using DDG as well because its free as well but I can see how for some price can be a non issue and they might like kagi more.
So Kagi / DDG (Duckduckgo) yeah.
I’ve been a Kagi subscriber for a while now. Recently picked up ChatGPT Business and now am considering dropping Kagi since I am only using it for trivial searches. Every comparison I’ve done with deep searches by hand and with AI ended up with the same results in far less time using AI.
There's this thing where all the thought leaders in software engineering ask "What will change about building about building a business when code is free" and while, there are some cool things, I've also thought, like it could have some pretty serious negative externalities? I think this question is going to become big everywhere - business, science, etc. which is like - Ok, you have all this stuff, but do is it valuable? Which of it actually takes away value?
To be fair, the question “what will change” does not presume the changes will be positive. I think it’s the right question to ask, because change is coming whether we like it or not. While we do have agency, there are large forces at play which impact how certain things will play out.
The value is in the same place: solving people's problems.
Now that the code is cheaper (not free quite yet) skills further up the abstraction chain become more valuable.
Programming and design skills are less valuable. However, you still have to know what to build: product and UX skills are more valuable. You still have to know how to build it: software architect skills are more valuable.
The first casualty of LLMs was the slush pile--the unsolicited submission pile for publishers. We've since seen bug bounty programs and open source repositories buckle under the load of AI-generated contributions. And all of these have the same underlying issue: the LLM makes it easy to do things that don't immediately look like garbage, which makes the volume of submission skyrocket while the time-to-reject also goes up slightly because it passes the first (but only the first) absolute garbage filter.
I run a small print-on-demand platform and this is exactly what we're seeing. The submissions used to be easy to filter with basic heuristics or cheap classifiers, but now the grammar and structure are technically perfect. The problem is that running a stronger model to detect the semantic drift or hallucinations costs more than the potential margin on the book. We're pretty much back to manual review which destroys the unit economics.
If it's print-on-demand, why does it matter? Why shouldn't you accept someone's money to print slop for them?
I mean I'm currently getting "expensive" medical care and the doctors are still all using AI scribes. I wouldn't assume there would be a gap in anything other than perception. I imagine doctors that cater to the fuck you rich will just put more effort into hiding it.
No one, at all levels, wants to do notes.
My experience has been that the transcriptions are way more detailed and correct when doctors use these scribes.
You could argue that not writing down everything provides a greater signal-noise ratio. Fair enough, but if something seemingly inconsequential is not noted and something is missed, that could worsen medical care.
I'm not sure how this affects malpractice claims - It's now easier to prove (with notes) that the doc "knew" about some detail that would otherwise not have been note down.
In a corollary to Sturgeon's Law, I'd propose Altman's Law: "In the Age of AI, 99.999...% of everything is crap"