my friend works for a company called 'profound' whose whole job is 'get found by ai' by spamming reddit and other talk sites ( among other things)
Three sites made 215,128 “best software” pages for AI. Perplexity cites them
41–50 of 265 posts
Re: Three sites made 215,128 “best software” pages for AI. Perplexity cites them
#42It's difficult to read more than a few sentences, when this itself is clearly a Claude artifact.
Re: Three sites made 215,128 “best software” pages for AI. Perplexity cites them
#43my friend works for a company called 'profound' whose whole job is 'get found by ai' by spamming reddit and other talk sites ( among other things)
And very impressive list of angels too: Guillermo Rauch (Vercel), Karim Atiyeh (Ramp), Andrew Karam (AppLovin) among others
Last I heard they're trying to reposition from AEO/GEO to "AI Marketer". No clue how that's going, I feel like the AEO/GEO stuff isn't super defensible at that valuation if for no other reason than I assume (hope) the spamming stops working.
[1] https://dealroom.co/news/126181-profound-raises-96m-at-1b-va...
Re: Three sites made 215,128 “best software” pages for AI. Perplexity cites them
#44If I recall correctly, there were some papers which suggested that LLMs favor LLM-generated passages over human written ones. I can consistently reproduce this by asking Claude which code snippet it prefers: the one it generated in a different chat, or one that I refactored for my own needs and find more useful. It always picks its own :) I've also experienced that both Claude and Codex routinely include generated we…
1. For a given company, analyze their target audiences and the questions they are likely to ask LLMs about.
2. For each such question, ask it to each of the major LLMs, and compute the KL divergence between the pages they want to rank for the question vs. the LLM's response.
3. Rewrite the article to minimize said KL divergence.
In effect, they're performing an iterative optimization of some sort that moves the embedding space of their article closer to the question asked to the LLM, and any embedding model or generated responses are going to prefer said responses over others.
I believe we will keep seeing more of this stuff.
Re: Three sites made 215,128 “best software” pages for AI. Perplexity cites them
#45It's difficult to read more than a few sentences, when this itself is clearly a Claude artifact.
Indeed. A google/brave search on that founder generated nada.
Re: Three sites made 215,128 “best software” pages for AI. Perplexity cites them
#46It's difficult to read more than a few sentences, when this itself is clearly a Claude artifact.
Re: Three sites made 215,128 “best software” pages for AI. Perplexity cites them
#47I was traveling to an obscure small town, doing some "research" with LLMs beforehand. Every and each one told me enthusiastically to go to "Foobar square" (name changed) for the "best street food in XYZ town", some added a lot of colorful details.
There was no Foobar square in XYZ town. There was no Foobar square anywhere in the world. There was a SINGLE old Reddit comment, with no upvotes, to a unpopular post in an unpopular subreddit, where someone clearly badly misspelled the name of the square, and said something like "for street food go to Foobar square". Nothing about "the best" even.
It's all a lie.
Re: Three sites made 215,128 “best software” pages for AI. Perplexity cites them
#48Re: Three sites made 215,128 “best software” pages for AI. Perplexity cites them
#49I've been vary of using ai to search considering all the spam out there. I think I'd rather, perhaps naively, whitelist wikipedia, reddit, arxiv, some news sources, etc than include everything. Is there nothing out there that does this? I'm paying for kagi and I can see that it has an api, is that maybe sufficient if configured properly?
Re: Three sites made 215,128 “best software” pages for AI. Perplexity cites them
#50If I recall correctly, there were some papers which suggested that LLMs favor LLM-generated passages over human written ones. I can consistently reproduce this by asking Claude which code snippet it prefers: the one it generated in a different chat, or one that I refactored for my own needs and find more useful. It always picks its own :) I've also experienced that both Claude and Codex routinely include generated we…
> asking Claude which code snippet it prefers: the one it generated in a different chat, or one that I refactored [...] It always picks its own ...is not the same as claiming... > LLMs favor LLM-generated passages over human written ones Here, you're using the same LLM to both produce and judge the resulting work. If anything, I would expect an LLM to tend to prefer its own work given that the same training is produc…
Perhaps something like: learning to identify what source files it has worked on by the code style alone, because tasks may give human code (public repos, etc) and ask to make changes.