The desktop app has a banner that says:

> Signal is experiencing technical difficulties. We are working hard to restore service as quickly as possible.

Status page linked in the post CURRENTLY says the same.

Okay, now they also updated the status page.

Worldcoin didn't gain any traction so now this?

> enabling a future Democrat in the White House to do the exact same thing

Assuming there will be a future D in the white house, I don't believe they will do the exact same thing.

I don't think the current administration does either.

Google refunded all Stadia purchases, both hardware and software, after they discontinued the platform/product. Then they added functionality (the ability to operate the controller as a generic Bluetooth controller) afterward to keep the hardware from becoming e-waste.

Cheaper than the class action which would've followed given Stadia's relatively short life.

Short by anything but Google standards :P

How is it better?

I can believe that a conversation like that happened once. Maybe twice, if I want to be extra generous with the benefit of the doubt. It's missing context but I can have my imagination can fill in those gaps.

But he said that this was common.

And to expand: it's a gradient, not black-and-white.

I think it's generally understood among their users (paying customers who make an active choice to use the service) but I agree—they should be explicit re: the disclosure.

Kagi News does not require payment. The articles are indexed by search engines. Anyone can send a link to anyone else or post a link anywhere.

The speculation most Kagi customers inferred the articles were AI generated could be correct. Or not. We agree they should disclose in any case.

All AI use should have mandatory disclosure.

I generally side with those that think that it's rude to regurgitate something that's AI generated.

I think I am comfortable with some level of AI-sharing rudeness though, as long as it's sourced/disclosed.

I think it would be less rude if the prompt was shared along whatever was generated, though.

> AI slop eventually will get as good as your average blogger. Even now if you put an effort into prompting and context building, you can achieve 100% human like results.

In that case, I don't think I consider it "AI slop"—it's "AI something else". If you think everything generated by AI is slop (I won't argue that point), you don't really need the "slop" descriptor.

Then the fight Kagi is proposing is against bad AI content, not AI content per-se? Then that's very subjective...

I don't pretend to speak for them, but I'm OK in principle dealing in non-absolutes.

Explicitly in the article, one of the headings is "AI slop is deceptive or low-value AI-generated content, created to manipulate ranking or attention rather than help the reader."

So yes, they are proposing marking bad AI content (from the user's perspective), not all AI-generated content.

Which troubles me a bit, as 'bad' does not have same definition for everyone.

How is this any different from a search engine choosing how to rank any other content, including penalizing SEO spam? I may not agree with all of their priorities, but I would welcome the search engine filtering out low quality, low effort spam for me.

Yes, that's why we'll publish a blog post on this subject in the coming weeks. We've been working on this topic since the beginning of summer, and right now our focus is on exploring report patterns.

Matt also shared insights about the other signals we use for this evaluation here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45920720

And we are still exploring other factors,

1/ is the reported content ai-generated?

2/ is most content in that domain ai-generated (+ other domain-level signals) ==> we are here

3/ is it unreviewed? (no human accountability, no sources, ...)

4/ is it mindlessly produced? (objective errors, wrong information, poor judgement, ...)

There’s a whole genre of websites out there that are a ToC and a series of ChatGPT responses.

I take it to mean they’re targeting that shit specifically and anything else that becomes similarly prevalent and a plague upon search results.

A simple definition would be: Its bad if it isn't labeled as AI content or if there is not a mechanism that allows you to filter out AI content.

That's fine.