this post was submitted on 27 May 2026
100 points (98.1% liked)

Fuck AI

7192 readers
1870 users here now

"We did it, Patrick! We made a technological breakthrough!"

A place for all those who loathe AI to discuss things, post articles, and ridicule the AI hype. Proud supporter of working people. And proud booer of SXSW 2024.

AI, in this case, refers to LLMs, GPT technology, and anything listed as "AI" meant to increase market valuations.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

When Google was founded in 1998 it solved a big problem: spammy and chaotic web. Does this sound familiar? Because it's happening again. The World-Wide-Web is still a place for everyone, but if it doesn't have good SEO nobody will find it. AI webs and images are surrounding the internet.

How is Google handling that? By deleting blue links and replacing them with AI agents. How are other search engines handling that? By creating blacklists and scanning websites using AI detectors. That will never work.

Well, I have an idea...

[ ? ] Basic concept

Basically, imagine Wikidata (a big database of lots of things filled with data, similar to Wikipedia), but not for objects, but for websites. Websites would have their own pages with information about them - what kind of website it is, whether it has ads, a short description, when it was created/who founded it, how big it is, etc. It would be all open-source and managed by the community.

[ * ] Features

Sounds weird, right? Why would someone do it? Well because of the advantages:

  • You can filter your search in hundreds of ways! One example: you want to find something on a small forums, that are ad-free and founded more than four years ago for no AI garbage. On google? Impossible. In this idea you would just type it into the search. Super useful. Do you know any other search engines where you can do this? I don't.
  • What about the history of websites? Normal search engines only work with how the pages look at the moment. But that's not always efficient. With a database of website history, a search engine can find out that a website has been changed (all its content) four times in a month. That's not how normal websites look, is it?
  • Another thing is SEO. SEO requires experts and a lot of money. In this system, you just enter data into a database - anyone can do it!

[ @ ] Image search

These days, some AI images are that that realistic, that is impossible to tell if the image is AI or not. So we have to do it differently, not by checking when the image is already taken, but by when the image is being taken - insert cryptic metadata into the photo. And I'm not talking about that garbage EXIF metadata that can be overwritten, but about C2PA.

It's still not mainstream, but it's groundbreaking. It’s also the only way to make sure that the photo was taken by a human.

[ # ] Potential Challenges

As every project in it early stage, it have potential challenges. But they are not impossible to solve, they only require some effort. The database can be filled it can be full of spam from random people, from bots from anyone. To solve this problem, we would need to implement a system similar to the one used by Wikipedia.

Another thing, MONEY. I don't have any idea, how much it can cost, but it will be not for free.

The internet is changing rapidly. It would hard to keep the database fresh, hm? Well, bots can help a lot, by checking important info (if website is only or not and countless other details).

[ / ] Final though

I am releasing this here, because I want someone to make it real. I'm not planning to do it myself, I don't havr enough skills to do it. I just want to make search fun again.

If Wikipedia could build the world’s biggest encyclopedia from scratch, it's possible to build the world’s biggest web directory.

top 13 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] CombatWombat@feddit.online 11 points 3 days ago (2 children)

We did something similar in the early web. Rather than going to a separate site, you'd add meta tags with information about your website that crawlers could pick up. Spammers just lied about the contents of their websites to show up in crawlers, so search engines started crawling the actual page contents. I'm fairly certain your wikidata source would end up being both incomplete and inaccurate.

[–] ok1computer@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

Interesting, I haven't heard about this before! It's obvious that site owners will lied about want the site is about to get more attetion. But in this case, the databse is community-driven, which means if there will be a lie, other users (or bots) can detect it, and edit it.

The database will be always incomplete, like the wikipedia. Also, why store all the websites? Lot of them are deep web or Domain Parking. And inaccurate? Yes. Wikipedia is inaccuarate too. When somebody see a mistake, it probably fix it. That's how it works. It works well.

[–] LostCarcosan@lemmy.today 1 points 2 days ago

It sounds like any user could update the tags. Seems like it would end up being community policed and have about the accuracy as regular wikipedia

[–] aproposnix@piefed.social 12 points 3 days ago

So basically like a yellow pages for websites, right? Its kinda cool esp., for the decentralized web movement.

I love how people are cherry picking the successes of old internet and information tech to dream of an ideal internet <3

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_portal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_directory

[–] dumnezero@piefed.social 8 points 3 days ago
[–] Kernal64@sh.itjust.works 5 points 3 days ago

Congrats, you've invented the original version of Yahoo, not to mention as others have pointed out, numerous other web rings and web directories.

[–] ZDL@lazysoci.al 4 points 2 days ago

Human curated web directories predate Google. They never worked out because they could never keep pace.

[–] ok1computer@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Hey guys, many of you (@Kernal64@sh.itjust.works, @solrize@lemmy.ml, @dumnezero@piefed.social) compared my idea with web directories (Curlie, DMOZ, Yahoo..). But that's not exactly the same. They was storing website just by topic of the website. In database, there should much more information about the website than just: "it's chess one". Let me explain it on library example:

Web directory: Library where you say which genre you want and they show you a list of books with this genre.

General search engines: Library where you say for which types of books you want, and they recomend you a few contating what you wanted, but sorted based on your own preferences and how much the authors paid them.

Database: Library where you say what books you want, and can contain any other things you wantm Like when the book was published, by who, topic of the book etc. Combining all these together.

[–] ZDL@lazysoci.al 0 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

So all these web directories that got swamped so badly they couldn't keep up would not get swamped if they stored more data per entry?

Whatever it is you're smoking, stop bogarting it and pass it around.

This sounds a bit like link rings from back in the day.

[–] ok1computer@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago

What do you think about this whole? I would like to hear your thoughs!