[meowface]

I consider myself a major LLM optimist in many ways, but if I'm receiving a once per day curated news aggregation feed I feel I'd want a human eye. I guess an LLM in theory might have less of the biases found in humans, but you're trading one kind of bias for another.

[rwl]

Indeed! A once per day human-curated news aggregation feed used to be called a "newspaper". You can still get them in some places, I believe.

[flexagoon]

This isn't really comparable. A newspaper is a single source. New York Times is a newspaper, CNN (a part of it) is a newspaper. Services like Kagi News, whether AI or human-curated, try to do aggregation and meta-analysis of many newspaper.

[yencabulator]

Newspapers routinely report what other newspapers said. The original(s) is the one "breaking" the story, the others are "covering" the story.

[mvieira38]

Yeah, I agree. The entire value/fact dichotomy that the announcement bases itself on is a pretty hot philosophical topic I lean against Kagi on. It's just impossible to summarize any text without imparting some sort of value judgement on it, therefore "biasing" the text

[xpe]

> It's just impossible to summarize any text without imparting some sort of value judgement on it, therefore "biasing" the text

Unfortunately, the above is nearly a cliché at this point. The phrase "value judgment" is insufficient because it occludes some important differences. To name just two that matter; there is a key difference between (1) a moral value judgment; (2) selection & summarization (often intended to improve information density for the intended audience).

For instance, imagine two non-partisan medical newsletters. Even if they have the same moral values (e.g. rooted in the Hippocratic Oath), they might have different assessments of what is more relevant for their audience. One could say both are "biased", but does doing so impart any functional information? I would rather say something like "Newsletter A is compromised of Editorial Board X with such-and-such a track record and is known for careful, long-form articles" or "Newsletter B is a one-person operation known for a prolific stream of hourly coverage." In this example, saying the newsletters differ in framing and intended audience is useful, but calling each "biased in different ways" is a throwaway comment (having low informational content in the Shannonian sense).

Personally, instead of saying "biased" I tend to ask questions like: (a) Who is their intended audience; (b) What attributes and qualities consistently shine through?; (c) How do they make money? (d) Is the publication/source transparent about their approach? (e) What is their track record about accuracy, separating commentary from factual claims, professional integrity, disclosure of conflicts of interest, level of intellectual honesty, epistemic standards, and corrections?

[xpe]

> The entire value/fact dichotomy that the announcement bases itself on

Hmmm. Here I will quote some representative sections from the announcement [1]:

>> News is broken. We all know it, but we’ve somehow accepted it as inevitable. The endless notifications. The clickbait headlines designed to trigger rather than inform, driven by relentless ad monetization. The exhausting cycle of checking multiple apps throughout the day, only to feel more anxious and less informed than when we started. This isn’t what news was supposed to be. We can do better, and create what news should have been all along: pure, essential information that respects your intelligence and time.

>> .. Kagi News operates on a simple principle: understanding the world requires hearing from the world. Every day, our system reads thousands of community curated RSS feeds from publications across different viewpoints and perspectives. We then distill this massive information into one comprehensive daily briefing, while clearly citing sources.

>> .. We strive for diversity and transparency of resources and welcome your contributions to widen perspectives. This multi-source approach helps reveal the full picture beyond any single viewpoint.

>> .. If you’re tired of news that makes you feel worse about the world while teaching you less about it, we invite you to try a different approach with Kagi News, so download it today ...

I don't see any evidence from these selections (nor the announcement as a whole) that their approach states, assumes, or requires a value/fact dichotomy. Additionally, I read various example articles to look for evidence that their information architecture group information along such a dichotomy.

Lastly, to be transparent, I'll state a claim that I find to be true: for many/most statements, it isn't that difficult nor contentious to separate out factual claims from value claims. We don't need to debate the exact percentages or get into the weeds on this unless you think it will be useful.

I will grant this -- which is a different point that what the commenter above made -- when reading various articles from a particular source, it can take effort and analysis to suss out the source's level of intellectual honesty, ulterior motives, and other questions I mention in my sibling comment.

[1]: https://blog.kagi.com/kagi-news

[b112]

Don't worry, all those news articles are of course human curated.

(I say this sarcastically and unhappily)