this post was submitted on 16 Dec 2024
-80 points (14.3% liked)

Technology

60033 readers
2951 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 18 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (6 children)

well whether popular doesn't neceserally mean ungood. though I'm pretty skeptical when it comes to search engines as the amount they have to build up information wise to potentially be good is pretty extreme, it's unlikely that someone could accomplish it without actually being known

edit: oh shit, it's just AI crap.. nevermind any of my potential it's not impossible that a hidden gem would be feasilble it's AI crap. No nobody needs a search engine to bring up something that you can't verify if it's credible information or just random guesses made by what's popular on the internet... completely worthless.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 days ago (3 children)

kagi is actually a pretty good, quite unknown search engine. I strongly prefer it to google.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago (2 children)

It has some pretty unsavory behind the scenes stuff going on though

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

wut? never heard of that, but I guess I never looked really. Unsavory how?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago

Mostly with the CEO lying, AI, and privacy concerns. https://d-shoot.net/kagi.html

load more comments (2 replies)