Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Three sites made 215,128 “best software” pages for AI. Perplexity cites them

trellner.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 265 posts

Re: Three sites made 215,128 “best software” pages for AI. Perplexity cites them

#71

Post by cindyllm »

thatjoeoverthr wrote: post #61
xpct wrote: post #18

If 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…

> always picks its own If you hate AI writing enough, this turns AI filters into a kind of humiliation ritual. AI will derank normal business writing for human readers, and uprank inflated, verbose, tic-heavy slop. So you have to put the heavy slop out with your name on it. Really perverse moment.

[dead]

Re: Three sites made 215,128 “best software” pages for AI. Perplexity cites them

#72

Post by fluidcruft »

marginalia_nu wrote: post #57
fluidcruft wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Theoretically, Goggle doesn't care which websites run their ads, so they might as well give you the most useful ones. Search doesn't really work for engagementmaxxing.

If you send people to the optimal website containing exactly the information they are after, then you get fewer ad impressions than if you send them to a suboptimal website that has them going back and clicking on more links.

This is like suggesting you can show people more ads by keeping them in line at the DMV for longer. Try that at your peril. People aren't at the DMV to waste time and there's a reason the DMV is hated.

Re: Three sites made 215,128 “best software” pages for AI. Perplexity cites them

#73

Post by wldcordeiro »

marginalia_nu wrote: post #20
threetonesun wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, was. They did a bad job of it these last few years which allowed any AI that could crawl the web to seem amazing for search because it could pick the best posts from Reddit or whatever other forum had the best context for your question, but now we're watching the AI snake eat its own tail.

Hard to conclusively beat spam when your primary means of making money is selling the very ads that the spammers are using to make money.

heh reminds me how every app lets you report ads as "spam" still but in this day what is even the difference?

Re: Three sites made 215,128 “best software” pages for AI. Perplexity cites them

#74

Post by dgellow »

xpct wrote: post #18

If 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…

A bit different, but one thing I’ve seen is models repackaging Reddit slop. Like, it will do a search, find a Reddit thread somewhat related where someone in a comment casually mentioned incorrect information that any human would have dismissed. The model takes that as granted, but expands on it and present it as a well established fact, presented in a very plausible fashion.

In general I don’t find models to be good at evaluating the quality of a source :(

Re: Three sites made 215,128 “best software” pages for AI. Perplexity cites them

#75

Post by SoftTalker »

locknitpicker wrote: post #63
SoftTalker wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And it's all because of ads. The incentives in an ad-funded internet are just always going to lead to this sort of thing. The most important thing is getting the user to load your page, not actually satisfying their query. Let's hope the LLM model continues to be paying for credits, because any that move to ad revenue will become useless for real work.

> And it's all because of ads. Not really. A while ago there was a news piece stating that Israel was behind a series of fake think-tanks with very accessible websites which were created with the express purpose of feeding AI agents with alternative facts aligned with their foreign policy. If anyone has the link at hand, please post it.

That sounds very plausible too. Propaganda/spin has always been a component of mass media.

Re: Three sites made 215,128 “best software” pages for AI. Perplexity cites them

#76

Post by bjt »

locknitpicker wrote: post #63
SoftTalker wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And it's all because of ads. The incentives in an ad-funded internet are just always going to lead to this sort of thing. The most important thing is getting the user to load your page, not actually satisfying their query. Let's hope the LLM model continues to be paying for credits, because any that move to ad revenue will become useless for real work.

> And it's all because of ads. Not really. A while ago there was a news piece stating that Israel was behind a series of fake think-tanks with very accessible websites which were created with the express purpose of feeding AI agents with alternative facts aligned with their foreign policy. If anyone has the link at hand, please post it.

There are incentives other than marketing, but I doubt the SEO company referred to by the ancestor comment is planning to do lots of business in the political propaganda space.

Re: Three sites made 215,128 “best software” pages for AI. Perplexity cites them

#78

Post by locknitpicker »

tencentshill wrote: post #70
locknitpicker wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And it's all because of ads. Not really. A while ago there was a news piece stating that Israel was behind a series of fake think-tanks with very accessible websites which were created with the express purpose of feeding AI agents with alternative facts aligned with their foreign policy. If anyone has the link at hand, please post it.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/aug/26/fake-thinktank...

Thank you.

Past HN discussions

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49337392 (884 comments)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49313477

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49447600

Re: Three sites made 215,128 “best software” pages for AI. Perplexity cites them

#79

Post by toddmorey »

I do think models currently don't have enough source skepticism.

If you look at agent traces when asked to compare two options to help inform a decision, many of the comparison pages cited in research are often hosted by one of the companies being compared; nearly all are AI-generated AEO plays. Not deeply considering the motive of published information is currently a glitch that can be exploited, but the window will close.

I'm sure model providers will set up some crappy pay for play verification system for "trusted" product information, comparisons, and reviews.

Re: Three sites made 215,128 “best software” pages for AI. Perplexity cites them

#80

Post by 8384727747478 »

This is a problem we experience with our own niche SaaS product. We have been in business for about 10 years, but asking any LLM about recommendations in this niche will not mention our tool at all. If we ask ”why don’t you meantion X” - they say that ”oh, X is also a very reputable and good candidate”

Some of those ”best software sites” has reached out to us with an offer where we can then pay them an annual fee depending on which position we would like.

It feels so wrong - will this continue or will the LLMs learn to ignore them?

Post reply on HN