- 166comments
- 22comments
- 39comments
- 101comments
- 69comments
- 225comments
- 128comments
- 17comments
- 11comments
- 132comments
- 189comments
- 10comments
- 604comments
- 77comments
- —discuss
- 12comments
- 24comments
- 71comments
- 8comments
- 13comments
- 172comments
- 5comments
- 18comments
- 80comments
- 83comments
- 49comments
- 224comments
- 2comments
- 63comments
- 685comments
---
Hello. It's 2026, we're training simulated fruit fly brains to play Beat Saber, do we still have to be stuck with internet (re)search as fn: natural language -> black box we can't do anything about -> ranked_list/summary?
There is a long history of people trying to do very fancy things that end up being done in relational databases and a little SQL. There is a gravity to them, a bitter lesson, just like scaling of generalized ml training methods. I mean many, many information products can be built off essentially giant real-time OLAP databases and frontier LLMs writing brilliant SQL+Datalog+vector+Jev etc. queries.
Google Search, Tavily, Exa essentially have the problem of mapping your agents' context you are willing to provide, to a tiny subset of their index. You pay a fixed cost to an extremely hard problem that has a distribution of hardness, which means YOU eat the downsides when they are running out of budgeted compute to help you out.
Their algorithms are opaque to the caller, there's really not much user control, and there's not a serious opportunity to communally improve search recipes, like the lexical+Jev recipes you trust to select bleeding edge AI builders.
Furthermore, search companies aren't even pursuing text-to-SQL anymore (several have talked to me)... they made up their minds during the traumatic 2024 text-to-sql days. They were just too early.
I hope you enjoy. I'm intent on scaling this paradigm on differentiated hardware over much more data, so any compelling use cases or queries I could show off, would be much appreciated!
This is a very good thing, thanks! Have you talked with any of the smaller search engines like Kagi, Qwant, Brave, Mwmbl, DDG, etc to have this supplement the quality of their results? This seems like a big step towards breaking Google and Bing's dominance in search.
that's a good idea. it's very doable
Please have a 'readable version' option so I don't have to exhaust myself parsing the sites layout. I get that it's unique but most of us just want to work out what you're offering in 5-10 seconds of our time.
I strongly second this, although I must admit it loaded surprisingly fast for me as I'm on a mobile hotspot in the back of a car.
HN: This site looks like all the other slop, awful to read.
Also HN: This site is doesn't look like other sites, awful to read.
Congestion pricing for queries sounds innovative.
Pricing model is hard to understand at a glance. It uses a term "second of query time" which is not a conventional term and not defined anywhere. Also, all pricing related pages seem to be LLM-generated and are hard to read for a human.
Please, just explain in your own words, how the pricing works, without using made up terms invented by an LLM.
It's beautiful <3