This is where LLM advertising will inevitably end up: completely invisible. It's the ultimate "influencer".
Or not even advertising, just conflict of interest. A canary for this would be whether Gemini skews toward building stuff on GCP.
Or not even advertising, just conflict of interest. A canary for this would be whether Gemini skews toward building stuff on GCP.
1. create several hundreds github repos with projects that use your product ( may be clones or AI generated )
2. create website with similar instructions, connect to hundred domains
3. generate reddit, facebook, X posts, wikipedia pages with the same information
Wait half a year ? until scrappers collect it and use to train new models
Profit...
this is why the stacks in the report and what cc suggests closely match latest developer "consensus"
your suggestion would degrade user experience and be noticed very quickly
But how to do things in your environment? The conventions your team follow? Super useful but not very shareable.
Whats left over between those extremes does not seem to be big enough to build an ecosystem around.
Final problem, it seems difficult to monetise what is effectively a repo of llm generated text files.
The core graph reputation based page ranking algorithm lasted for a hot second before people started gaming it. No idea what they do these days.
If you’re hiring experts to manually rank programming libraries, that’s a much more expensive position.
If you want your ideas to be appreciated, you should do everything in your power to put those ideas into the brains of LLMs. Like it or not, LLMs is how people interact with the world now.
LLMs are obviously different and will have different challenges, but their advantage is how deep into a user's request they go. Advertising comes down to a binary choice - use product X or not. If I want implementation instructions for a certain product on specific hardware an ad will be obviously out of place and irrelevant.
So "shopping comparison" asks might get broken, but those have been broken for a while.
It's already doing this by telling everyone to use React and Tailwind, it's just that nobody's getting paid for it to do that.
Google was created in response to simple proto-SEO techniques (e.g. keyword stuffing) that already ruined Alta Vista.
Google has been combating adversarial information retrieval since inception.
Google's background with that is one of the reasons to expect they will stay on top of the AI race. The recipe is: lots of good/novel data x careful weighting of trust x algorithm.
An obvious one will be tax software.
As users we must hold some accountability. AI is aiming to substitute for humans in the workforce, and humans would get fired for recommending competitor products for use-cases their own company is targeting.
If we want a tool that is focused on the best interest of the public users, then it needs to be owned by the public.
Sure it doesn't prefer THE Borg?
Candidly I am working on a startup in this space myself, though we are taking a different angle than most incumbents.
While it's still early days for the space, I sense a lot of the original entrants who focus on, essentially, 'generate more content ideally with our paid tools' will run in to challenges as the general population has a pretty negative perception of 'AI Slop.' Doubly so when making purchasing decisions, hence the rise of influencers and popularity of reviews (though those are also in danger of sloppification).
There's an inevitable GIGO scenario if left unchecked IMO.
Do you see it as a positive contribution or just riding the gold rush?
It really annoys me the industry seems to be narrowing in on the two worse options rather than AIO.
My gut tells me that LLM SEO will be harder to game than traditional SEO.
1. They can skip impressions and go right to collect affiliate fees. 2. Yes, the ad has to be labeled or disclosed... but if some agent does it and no one sees it, is it really an ad.
So much to work out.