3 ms·

I wonder if Kagi's implementation of the same feature influenced anyone at google or if this was an inevitable development. Google has been providing the AI ans

I wonder if Kagi's implementation of the same feature influenced anyone at google or if this was an inevitable development. Google has been providing the AI answer boxes for years but it's never been very user driven. With Kagi you can use !fast/!expert bangs to use one of several LLMs fed the top few search results or as of last month, just end the search query with a question mark (no affiliation just a happy customer). It's almost completely changed how I use search.

Maxion 3y ago
It's quite interesting what a search engine can be in 2024 when the product isn't the one using it, but the search results themselves. Kagi with a wayy smaller budget than Google have really managed to make something pretty cool. Still does not replace google for 100% of my searches, but for the ones it does it is remarkably good, and so much less mentally taxing when working on a coding problem. I don't have to on top of everything manually filter search results, I can just click the top link.
- ilaksh 3y ago
  Kagi uses the Google search API.
  - cmrdporcupine 3y ago
    "Our data includes anonymized API calls to traditional search indexes like Google, Yandex, Mojeek and Brave, specialized search engines like Marginalia, and sources of vertical information like Wolfram Alpha, Apple, Wikipedia, Open Meteo, Yelp, TripAdvisor and other APIs. Typically every search query on Kagi will call a number of different sources at the same time, all with the purpose of bringing the best possible search results to the user." So that's only telling a small part of the story.
    - lolinder 3y ago
      Not to mention that they have their own index that they're constantly working to expand: > But most importantly, we are known for our unique results, coming from our web index (internal name - Teclis) and news index (internal name - TinyGem). Kagi's indexes provide unique results that help you discover non-commercial websites and "small web" discussions surrounding a particular topic. Kagi's Teclis and TinyGem indexes are both available as an API. https://help.kagi.com/kagi/search-details/search-sources.html https://help.kagi.com/kagi/search-details/search-sources.htm...
    - ilaksh 3y ago
      The comment I replied to implied that they have their own large index equivalent to Google's and so don't need to use Google. It's not true, and I bet you would find that a very significant portion of the search results come directly from Google queries behind the scenes.
      - ska 3y ago
        I don’t think that implication was in the comment you replied to. “Well they just use google anyway” is too reductive.
  - romeros 3y ago
    This brings an interesting dilemma. Google could try the Kagi approach. If you're sitting in the CEO chair at Google, you're looking at a tough decision. Google Search isn't just another product; it's the heart of the business, raking in 60% of the revenue. They've been king of the search hill for over 20 years because they did one thing better than anyone else: search. Now, with LLMs entering the scene, adding them to search results could slash ad views and revenue. Remember the days when a simple search would send you down a fascinating rabbit hole of articles? Those days could be numbered. But here's the kicker: if you resist integrating LLMs into Google Search, you might slow down the revenue decline, sure. However, sticking to the old ways might also get you branded a Luddite and cost you your job. It's a classic tech dilemma - innovate or perish.
andy99 3y ago
I pay for Kagi, I'm only vaguely aware that they have AI features and I have no interest in using them. What I like is that it doesn't annoy me about that stuff or anything, it just lets me use it (kagi search) as I want. Completely different from aggressive big tech "you're the product" companies that use modal "got it?" popups to try and push features you don't want. I hope that doesn't change for Kagi more than anything else. Also, I rarely use search to answer questions and anyway would never just trust an answer. I even read SO before pasting in the code and decide if it fits with what I'm doing and what modifications the answer may need, I guess I'm old. But more importantly, I use "search" mostly to get to pages I know exist or expect to exist. And getting to the right page faster is what I care about, not any answer.
- frizlab 3y ago
  I pay for Kagi and was similarly only vaguely aware that they have AI features and I had no interest in using them. I started adding a question mark to my query out of curiosity and their instant answers are really good. Also they have links to their references, which I often check to verify the answer.
- littlecranky67 3y ago
  You should try Kagi's FastGPT [0]. You need not trust the answer, as it gives the URL sources for each paragraph to verify yourself. [0]: kagi.com/fastgpt
  - ethbr1 3y ago
    To me, this is the key UX component that Kagi does correctly -- traceability to the underlying source result (which is usually also quite good with its linkbait penalizing). I've found Kagi to be a great start for "I want to know a current fact in an area I don't follow actively."
codetrotter 3y ago
Google has been on a mission for years to stop letting users click through to other sites. They started with the info boxes that extracted info from sites so you don’t have to click and read. This is just a natural evolution of that.
- jeffbee 3y ago
  People don't want to click through, they want their question answered.
  - ethbr1 3y ago
    Does Google pass through ad revenue to its sources for searches serviced by instant answers? It seems like a simple business model: you give me answers, I give you a cut of the money I make off them, and I keep a piece of that money.
    - jeffbee 3y ago
      I think there are different classes of result that we should discuss. First, there are pure facts. I know that weather.com wants to interpose between me and the weather forecast that my government produced for me using my tax money, but Google doesn't need to assent to weather.com's scheme. That is something they can just answer. In the same way, whether my local chaat stand is open on Tuesdays in not a fact that belongs to Yelp. Then there are materials that are freely available but someone wants to stand in the way of them. For example, all of the wikipedia-but-with-ads hosts out there. Do we owe them anything? I say no. Do we owe anything to all of the journal indexes that try to convince you to pay $26 for the PDF of a paper from 1913 that's in the public domain anyway? I think not. And I don't think it is problematic if I ask Google whether Heidegger was a nazi, and Google answers with an answer instead of referring me to the gatekeepers of centrury-old information.
      - ethbr1 3y ago
        There's a third class too, perhaps the most important one -- facts which take time, money, and/or skill to assemble. E.g. a summary of the minutes from your local city council, a respin of government economic statistics that answers a topical question, or a news investigation into a topic. I'm ambivalent as to the business model that sustains that third class, but I resolutely think one needs to exist. And Google, as currently constructed and operated, is not it. It doesn't originate content. Ergo, passthrough of Google revenue to some entity that can / does do that seems reasonable.
radicality 3y ago
Can also hit ‘q’ to show the Quick Answer feature if you forgot the question mark. Love this feature too, especially the references! I end almost all my queries with a question mark now.

Maxion 3y ago

It's quite interesting what a search engine can be in 2024 when the product isn't the one using it, but the search results themselves. Kagi with a wayy smaller budget than Google have really managed to make something pretty cool. Still does not replace google for 100% of my searches, but for the ones it does it is remarkably good, and so much less mentally taxing when working on a coding problem. I don't have to on top of everything manually filter search results, I can just click the top link.

ilaksh 3y ago
Kagi uses the Google search API.
- cmrdporcupine 3y ago
  "Our data includes anonymized API calls to traditional search indexes like Google, Yandex, Mojeek and Brave, specialized search engines like Marginalia, and sources of vertical information like Wolfram Alpha, Apple, Wikipedia, Open Meteo, Yelp, TripAdvisor and other APIs. Typically every search query on Kagi will call a number of different sources at the same time, all with the purpose of bringing the best possible search results to the user." So that's only telling a small part of the story.
  - lolinder 3y ago
    Not to mention that they have their own index that they're constantly working to expand: > But most importantly, we are known for our unique results, coming from our web index (internal name - Teclis) and news index (internal name - TinyGem). Kagi's indexes provide unique results that help you discover non-commercial websites and "small web" discussions surrounding a particular topic. Kagi's Teclis and TinyGem indexes are both available as an API. https://help.kagi.com/kagi/search-details/search-sources.html https://help.kagi.com/kagi/search-details/search-sources.htm...
  - ilaksh 3y ago
    The comment I replied to implied that they have their own large index equivalent to Google's and so don't need to use Google. It's not true, and I bet you would find that a very significant portion of the search results come directly from Google queries behind the scenes.
    - ska 3y ago
      I don’t think that implication was in the comment you replied to. “Well they just use google anyway” is too reductive.
- romeros 3y ago
  This brings an interesting dilemma. Google could try the Kagi approach. If you're sitting in the CEO chair at Google, you're looking at a tough decision. Google Search isn't just another product; it's the heart of the business, raking in 60% of the revenue. They've been king of the search hill for over 20 years because they did one thing better than anyone else: search. Now, with LLMs entering the scene, adding them to search results could slash ad views and revenue. Remember the days when a simple search would send you down a fascinating rabbit hole of articles? Those days could be numbered. But here's the kicker: if you resist integrating LLMs into Google Search, you might slow down the revenue decline, sure. However, sticking to the old ways might also get you branded a Luddite and cost you your job. It's a classic tech dilemma - innovate or perish.

andy99 3y ago

I pay for Kagi, I'm only vaguely aware that they have AI features and I have no interest in using them. What I like is that it doesn't annoy me about that stuff or anything, it just lets me use it (kagi search) as I want. Completely different from aggressive big tech "you're the product" companies that use modal "got it?" popups to try and push features you don't want. I hope that doesn't change for Kagi more than anything else. Also, I rarely use search to answer questions and anyway would never just trust an answer. I even read SO before pasting in the code and decide if it fits with what I'm doing and what modifications the answer may need, I guess I'm old. But more importantly, I use "search" mostly to get to pages I know exist or expect to exist. And getting to the right page faster is what I care about, not any answer.

frizlab 3y ago
I pay for Kagi and was similarly only vaguely aware that they have AI features and I had no interest in using them. I started adding a question mark to my query out of curiosity and their instant answers are really good. Also they have links to their references, which I often check to verify the answer.
littlecranky67 3y ago
You should try Kagi's FastGPT [0]. You need not trust the answer, as it gives the URL sources for each paragraph to verify yourself. [0]: kagi.com/fastgpt
- ethbr1 3y ago
  To me, this is the key UX component that Kagi does correctly -- traceability to the underlying source result (which is usually also quite good with its linkbait penalizing). I've found Kagi to be a great start for "I want to know a current fact in an area I don't follow actively."

codetrotter 3y ago

Google has been on a mission for years to stop letting users click through to other sites. They started with the info boxes that extracted info from sites so you don’t have to click and read. This is just a natural evolution of that.

jeffbee 3y ago
People don't want to click through, they want their question answered.
- ethbr1 3y ago
  Does Google pass through ad revenue to its sources for searches serviced by instant answers? It seems like a simple business model: you give me answers, I give you a cut of the money I make off them, and I keep a piece of that money.
  - jeffbee 3y ago
    I think there are different classes of result that we should discuss. First, there are pure facts. I know that weather.com wants to interpose between me and the weather forecast that my government produced for me using my tax money, but Google doesn't need to assent to weather.com's scheme. That is something they can just answer. In the same way, whether my local chaat stand is open on Tuesdays in not a fact that belongs to Yelp. Then there are materials that are freely available but someone wants to stand in the way of them. For example, all of the wikipedia-but-with-ads hosts out there. Do we owe them anything? I say no. Do we owe anything to all of the journal indexes that try to convince you to pay $26 for the PDF of a paper from 1913 that's in the public domain anyway? I think not. And I don't think it is problematic if I ask Google whether Heidegger was a nazi, and Google answers with an answer instead of referring me to the gatekeepers of centrury-old information.
    - ethbr1 3y ago
      There's a third class too, perhaps the most important one -- facts which take time, money, and/or skill to assemble. E.g. a summary of the minutes from your local city council, a respin of government economic statistics that answers a topical question, or a news investigation into a topic. I'm ambivalent as to the business model that sustains that third class, but I resolutely think one needs to exist. And Google, as currently constructed and operated, is not it. It doesn't originate content. Ergo, passthrough of Google revenue to some entity that can / does do that seems reasonable.

radicality 3y ago

Can also hit ‘q’ to show the Quick Answer feature if you forgot the question mark. Love this feature too, especially the references! I end almost all my queries with a question mark now.