It's difficult to read more than a few sentences, when this itself is clearly a Claude artifact.
There's also the irony that this AI written piece criticizes how low the domains are on the tranco list when trellner.com doesn't even make the list, haha.
Three sites made 215,128 “best software” pages for AI. Perplexity cites them
111–120 of 265 posts
Re: Three sites made 215,128 “best software” pages for AI. Perplexity cites them
#112It's difficult to read more than a few sentences, when this itself is clearly a Claude artifact.
Weird, there are 2 negative articles on the HN front page right now about Perplexity, both from “research” sites that are clearly LLM slop themselves.
Re: Three sites made 215,128 “best software” pages for AI. Perplexity cites them
#113Earlier quoted context omitted.
The other day, I remember an article was posted to HN about something, but it came from a company that provides SEO services to companies by doing something like this: 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…
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.
LLM vendors make this hard because you can't trust them with your session data. Yesterday you were opted out of training, then suddenly today you're opted in.
It's an extension of the idea that they don't need to care about anybody's copyright. They don't care about preserving the security or privacy of customer data, because there is negligible incentive to do so.
For now, there's no substitute but as LLMs get commoditized trusting LLM SAAS vendors becomes an unacceptable business risk.
Re: Three sites made 215,128 “best software” pages for AI. Perplexity cites them
#114Well it's not only this, or protection from LLMs training on LLM output. LLMs training on human output is also problematic. I 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 wa…
I think this was a common game on city/town subs. It happened here, there was a post asking for a good restaurant and someone just made up a name. It went viral and people started posting made-up menus for the place, reviews, and for a couple of months any time someone asked about a restaurant this fictional place would get mentioned. It was all done as a joke to see if they could get Gemini or ChatGPT to start recom…
Re: Three sites made 215,128 “best software” pages for AI. Perplexity cites them
#115If 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 better question to ask for each snippet is "Estimate the seniority and competence of the developer who wrote the following code, ignoring bugs that linters or LLMs can catch and focus only on structure, maintainability, logical layout and readability."
It almost always estimates the author of my code as above the author of it's own code.
Re: Three sites made 215,128 “best software” pages for AI. Perplexity cites them
#116Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's also the irony that this AI written piece criticizes how low the domains are on the tranco list when trellner.com doesn't even make the list, haha.
Look at the posters recent posts, these are 4 very similar AI sites, all similarly (badly) written by AI. I'm surprised his submissions aren't flagged.
As Jakob says on his own site:
The bar is shockingly low You’re competing against people who barely care and barely try
Re: Three sites made 215,128 “best software” pages for AI. Perplexity cites them
#117Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's also the irony that this AI written piece criticizes how low the domains are on the tranco list when trellner.com doesn't even make the list, haha.
Look at the posters recent posts, these are 4 very similar AI sites, all similarly (badly) written by AI. I'm surprised his submissions aren't flagged.
Re: Three sites made 215,128 “best software” pages for AI. Perplexity cites them
#118I used one of the 12-month free Perplexity offers when they were everywhere. It felt slightly useful at first for simple queries where I didn’t want to go through the top 10 Google results manually. If I was looking for a specific recipe I remembered or a help page or user manual it would usually find it quickly. Then they started optimizing for speed of responses over quality of results. I can enter a query and see…
I guess it makes sense though, unless you've got the lowest pricing on your own model how can you compete.
Re: Three sites made 215,128 “best software” pages for AI. Perplexity cites them
#119Honestly, I will just flag every post that is entirely AI slop from now on. This has to stop. The home page for this "independent research firm" is also 100% nonsense [1]. "The record a machine reads is not the one a company writes.". Ironically this low-effort spam is exactly what this report warns about, and does not belong in HN - or anywhere else. [1] https://trellner.com/
Also, that user's last four (three of them in the last hour) submissions have all been similar "finding" reports from a Claude-generated mystery research group website. All which contain exclusively AI slop articles. Ugh.
Re: Three sites made 215,128 “best software” pages for AI. Perplexity cites them
#120I'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?
If you use Kagi Assistant, you can pick one of your lenses (i.e. lists of domains to restrict searches to) in chats. Not sure if their API has that as well or some other way to restrict searches. Also not sure if the Assistant (or API) respects blocked domains when searching.
Same thing with your domain ranks, you can have the API key inherit your account’s existing ranks (blocked, pinned, etc domains) or configure new ones https://kagi.com/api/docs/openapi/search/search#search/searc...