[sjs382]

> Where's the part where you ask them to do this? Is this not something they do automatically?

It's a tool. Summarizing the news using AI is the only thing that tool does. Using a tool that does one thing is the same as asking the tool to do that thing.

> Are they not contributing to the slop by republishing slopified versions of articles without as much as an acknowledgement of the journalists whose stories they've decided to slopify?

They provide attribution to the sources. They're listed under the headline "Sources" right below the short summary/intro.

[input_sh]

It's not the only thing the tool does, as they also publish that regurgitation publicly. You can see it, I can see it without even having a Kagi account. That makes it very much not an on-demand tool, it makes it something much worse than what what ChatGPT is doing (and being sued for by NYT in the process).

> They provide attribution to the sources. It's listed under the headline "Sources" and is right below the short summary/intro.

No, they attribute it to publications, not journalists. Publications are not the ones writing the pieces. They could easily also display the name of the journalist, it's available in every RSS feed they regurgitate. It's something they specifically chose not to do. And then they have the balls to start their about page about the project like so:

> Why Kagi News? Because news is broken.

Downvote me all you want but fuck them. They're very much a part of the problem, as I've demonstrated.

[estimator7292]

> as I've demonstrated

You have not, you've thrown a temper tantrum