Thread

Amazon blocks Meta’s new Muse AI agent from shopping on amazon.com

153 points · 162 comments · simianwords

rkagerer · 1790016658 · focus · HN ↗
The right way to do this is to create an API or MCP or whatever catering to bots, and implement corresponding terms in your legal agreements (i.e. after approving a bot to interact with us, you're responsible for purchases it makes), along with some limits to prevent runaway shopping when Muse decides to binge.
Less friction = more shopping = more profits.
That used to be a concept companies like Amazon understood well. (As well as companies like Google in the context of web browsing and keeping it user-friendly as opposed to user-hostile).
If the bots mean customers are getting a better deal elsewhere, then you're doing something wrong elsewhere in your business model and need to go address that. Or eventually free market economics will, no matter how big an artificial moat you try to build.
1. krunck · 1790018451 · focus · HN ↗
  Nice. That would allow people to create alternative interfaces for humans (like me) who absolutely HATE Amazon's web interface.
  1. Terr_ · 1790018663 · focus · HN ↗
    They will absolutely put something in to prevent you from doing that, too much of their profit relies on the experience you hate.
    ssl-3 · 1790021480 · focus · HN ↗
    That experience actively drives me towards other retailers.
    I want to buy what I want to buy, and I will never buy things that I do not want to buy. If the time ever comes that I am tricked into buying the wrong thing from Amazon, then I'm sending it back on their dime.
    If that means that only 3 things fit, then I only want to see exactly 3 things. If that means that 0 things fit, then 0 is also a valid result. In response to these results, I can then elect to soften my constraints at my own volition.
    But an Amazon search typically results endless pages of vaguely-related products that represent a jumbled mess of things largely do not fit or only-sorta fit the broad concept of what I intend to purchase.
    When I want a 4300 Kelvin D2S HID headlight bulb for my car, then that's all that I want to find when I search for it. I do not want results for LEDs. I do not want selective yellow bulbs. I do not want 5000k or 6500k or 10000k. I do not want an "upgrade" kit, nor D2R bulbs, nor D3S. None of those things are useful to me.
    The list of things that I do not want is infinite, and when Amazon presents a seemingly-infinite list of them then that represents the opposite of usefulness.
    I only want to peruse listings that match. I require no more and no less than this in order to be satisfied. There is no possible amount of additional noise that can ever dissuade me from seeking the thing that I very specifically desire.
    A modern LLM can weed out and separate the bad results from the good ones and give me an easier time of making a purchase decision, but it can only do so when it is not blocked from the start.
    desolate_muffin · 1790023603 · focus · HN ↗
    > that's all that I want to find when I search
    That ship has long since sailed for every search product. Companies have long-since learned that intent-based results are much more profitable (why show an empty result page when you can show something for people to buy or click on?), but it is also often genuinely useful when your search is not perfect or what you want doesn't actually exist. I agree that it is annoying when you really truly do only want something very specific and the ranking prioritizes the wrong things (e.g., sponsored results, more profitable items, etc.) over exact matches, but can you honestly and truly say you've never found any value from intent search algorithms?
    spwa4 · 1790027985 · focus · HN ↗
    You mean if they falsify the search for both sides they make more money, as ironically spelt out in Google's original paper "The Anatomy of a Large-Scale Hypertextual Web Search Engine":
    “We expect that advertising funded search engines will be inherently biased towards the advertisers and away from the needs of the consumers.”
    “advertising income often provides an incentive to provide poor quality search results.”
    “the better the search engine is, the fewer advertisements will be needed for the consumer to find what they want. This of course erodes the advertising supported business model...”
    <a href="https://snap.stanford.edu/class/cs224w-readings/Brin98Anatomy.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://snap.stanford.edu/class/cs224w-readings/Brin98Anatom...
    Note: they even explain why advertising funded search makes things worse for customers and for advertisers. Worse search finds more ads and thus more dollars, resulting in both worsening search results over time AND less value for ad money over time.
    ssl-3 · 1790031614 · focus · HN ↗
    I very often truly only want something very specific. I'm not apologetic about that at all.
    When I want oolong tea bags and I search for "oolong tea bags," then I definitely don't want to be shown bulk green tea instead.
    If I want to find any kind of tea instead of specifically oolong -- if, perchance, I wish to peruse the broader market of available tea -- then I'm very capable of removing "oolong" and/or "bags" from my search prompt.
    ---
    I can look around and observe that the ship has sailed, but that doesn't mean I'll ever be happy with the outcome or accepting of any notion that the situation is anything other than hostile.
    Can you recognize that it gets between me and my willingness to spend money?

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.