It's correct. Anything "AI-generated" is slop in my eyes, and I'm not interested in it.

> If the page is AI‑generated but the domain is mixed (not mostly AI), we flag the page as AI‑generated but do not downrank it.

> If a domain is found to be mostly AI‑generated (typically more than 80% across its pages), that domain is flagged as AI slop and downranked in web search results.

I think that's pretty clear, no? One AI item is merely AI generated, a trough of AI items is AI slop.

Edited as I think I misunderstood: there's more slop of the AI kind than of whatever other low-effort content, and I think Kagi is already doing a good job of keeping a neat little index that avoids content farms, AI or otherwise. AI slop just happens to be a little harder to evaluate than regular slop (and in my experience is now more pervasive because it's cheaper to produce).

> It simply describes the recognition of material as "AI-generated".

That works as a good definition for me. Whether or not you want to call it "slop", anything that helps to filter out AI-generated stuff could be helpful.

My only concern about this is that it seems to rely on user reporting, and if that reporting includes (mistakenly or otherwise) sites that don't have AI generated content, that could make the tool less useful.

There may be low quality human slop but AI-slop is the most common slop on the internet.

I would disagree. I would never activate a feature that down-ranks or hides results based on some ominous judgement on quality by a Kagi team. For AI Slop its pretty easy to determine because it is always lows quality and useless content that provides zero value and is a waste of time. The guidelines as specified also allow for some margin or error here I would argue.