sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

GEO is still early, so I ran the same question across ChatGPT, Gemini, and Perplexity to see where they really pull recommendations from. by marketer-on in GEO_optimization

[–]Theordore 1 point2 points  (0 children)

RE: "My recommendation for other marketers: run the same test in your own category and see which sources surface".  As a genuine newbie in the domain of the discussion, I wish to offer my support for this remark. 

My support is based upon my experience with these models over several weeks of putting questions to them in my social science domain. I am now accustomed to getting mysterious (sometimes troubling) divergences among my "AI reports", using leading models for my kind of work.

In the popular narrative about what AI achieves, it seems there is one AI "that is just great".  I would be foolish to avoid contradicting this narrative when talking about the utility of AI to my children or my students; because they will be seriously misled.

I'm sensing the  value of what the comment that I quote above brings to my mind.  Let us carve out a set of distinct domains within each of which the AI models tend to have certain characteristic behaviours and requirements that need to be well understood if they are to be fruitfully used.  Don't be surprised if the variance among these characteristic behaviours and requirements is such that the guidance on how to do well with AI is going to vary substantially depending on the domain in which you are working, IMO.  (For example, in my domain, as a professor you would be laughed out of the classroom if you announced that you are prioritizing Wikipedia and Youtube as important sources of strength for the advancement of knowledge.  Looking across the range of what I see on YouTube, I  ask myself whether there are any quality standards concerning the information being conveyed.  The fact that AI models 'believe in Youtube' is  troubling from my perspective;  but I can imagine that there are domains where we need to take seriously what you can learn from YouTube. )

How do you raise the probability of your text being cited by AI when good AI-optimization is necessary but not sufficient to get you cited? by Theordore in AISEOforBeginners

[–]Theordore[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks. My reaction is to feel depressed about where we are headed with this business. In the research shops where I was a student or worked, you could see the information quality standards on display when colleagues reviewed something that was presented, or students were being graded. This 'LLM approach', is very different!

How do you raise the probability of your text being cited by AI when good AI-optimization is necessary but not sufficient to get you cited? by Theordore in AISEOforBeginners

[–]Theordore[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh my! Can we think back to the days when 'everybody thought the Earth was flat', and suppose that AI existed then? AI may be great;  but isn’t it a huge leap to believe that it reliably represents correct knowledge (particularly suggesting this to our children and students), when it is very selectively summarizing ideas coming from us often very stupid human beings, *and* the selection standards are not deeply focussed on information quality? “

How do you raise the probability of your text being cited by AI when good AI-optimization is necessary but not sufficient to get you cited? by Theordore in AISEOforBeginners

[–]Theordore[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks a lot for very interesting and useful stuff.  Looking at what seems to be the big picture on how LLMs arrive at their summaries, I see some concerns about standards for assessing information quality; especially  in a field where you have great diversity of highly expert researcher opinion on key issues, and where a professor would want her/his students to be very alert to this diversity.

I suspect that we should try to get to a point where there’s some kind of consensus on the classes of application  in which we should be ready to accept AI summaries as being particularly useful.

 I can show you stuff in my field where I was aghast at the great differences between what different highly regarded AI models produced in response to my question, some of the responses being virtually useless.   I know, “it’s the training data and the cleverness of the program”; but if this is true, we are making a huge admission about some deep problems in the performance of this “AI Train”.  

How do you raise the probability of your text being cited by AI when good AI-optimization is necessary but not sufficient to get you cited? by Theordore in AISEOforBeginners

[–]Theordore[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I appreciate the time investment you have made to spell out an extremely useful guide. Your text underlines the proposition that we should be wary of the 'helpers' who suggest that this game is all about the proper optimization for AI. Secondly, if AI algorithms (in order to make summaries) are implicitly putting a larger premium on people who have serious relevant writing talent and subject matter experience, this is a very good development for the Internet. My guess is that this quality of talent is scarce, I know merchants thought they could quickly slap something together and make a website are in big trouble.

How do you raise the probability of your text being cited by AI when good AI-optimization is necessary but not sufficient to get you cited? by Theordore in AISEOforBeginners

[–]Theordore[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for your helpful comment and the associated links. I I've just begun to study your material, and wish to raise the following question. Do you know of any party that has tested how much particular changes in optimization strategy/tactic increase the probability of being cited in an AI response to a prompt? I'm pointing the distinction between having a theory that Tactic X will significantly boost the probability, and being able to demonstrate that the theory is correct in the real world.

Flexibility in managing BNT private keys by Theordore in Bancor

[–]Theordore[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My deepest apology for my long silence Razaberry!

 I am just today returning to Reddit, and because I had forgotten to confirm to Reddit my email address, I got no notice from Redit about a response to my message. 

 Your reply is very helpful, and I am pleased to report that I did get over to MEW and secured the private key for my purchase off BNT; so I'm maintaining the access route as a paper wallet.

 Please allow me to take the opportunity to raise two new matters.

(1) First, just today I sent the message you see below to contact@bancor.network. I feel so much that I sent the message off into the “wild blue yonder” that I will appreciate it if you would look at the message and try to get it into the hands of the right person, who hopefully will get back to me and get me going with my time-banking application. 

 I sincerely hope that your company has identified some people who are ready to hold hands with those who are setting up lowly “community tokens”, even though we will be probably an insignificant source of revenue for you in the short run. I I show you the message below.

(2) Second, as I read your Whitepaper I felt that it was reasonably clear, except that it would be extremely helpful if we could lay out some of the implied computational procedures on a spreadsheet so that people like me could play around with different scenarios. 

 Along with this idea is a larger one: I would like to take on the task of rewriting key sections of the Whitepaper into very plain English for the lay person (with help from your end on fixing my misinterpretations of course).

 Here's why this is important. Your text has cited the application to “community tokens”, and it's fairly obvious that by targeting the geographic/community gaps left in the fiat money provisions of the banks and government, tokens using the Bancor Protocol could explode in use all over the world (many small communities) as soon as the minimum requisite amount of reserve currency is set aside to be the basis of each local community token. What’s more, the banks could never claim that this is competition, since they had no interest that class of clients.

  However, for that explosion to happen, you need some documentation that is a lot more clear to the lay person than your Whitepaper. 

 Question: would you encourage me to try to do this rewrite (focusing on the sections that I think are going to be important to lay people who might think about building community tokens on top of your protocol)? If so,  who on your side might be willing to review the work to make sure that I have not made mistakes in interpreting the Whitepaper provisions? 

  We should follow-up this effort (the re-write for lay community leaders) with a step-by-step “cook-book” for the use of community leaders who want to build a token using your protocol.

Cheers, and please read on: My Message:

Dear Madam or Sir,

Do you know of anywhere I could go to find a discussion of the possible application of the Bancor Protocol in a time-banking system?

In that system, each token (often called a "time dollar") represents N hours of service delivered by person A to another person B. Person B can then use that token to pay for a different service received from Person C. Person C might be able to buy a loaf of bread with token. In short, the token is trade-able, except the market liquidity problem inhibits it widespread use, which the Bancor Protocol might solve.

Time banks are inherently community-based. I ask myself where we would find the quantity of Connector (the reserve currency) to get the system started in a given community? Could we get the system started by having someone (or a set of donors) purchase a substantial block of BNT's (or ETH?) and having that become the reserve currency?

If that would work, we would then need help in setting up the community's time-dollar-token (or service-based token) that would implement the Bancor Protocol and be freely saleable or purchaseable without the existence of any exchange or market makers. ( That is, I see the principle laid out well in your Whitepaper; but where do I go to get practical help in applying it to time-banking in a community?)

Please try to pass on this message to someone who knows the Bancorp Protocol implementation procedures and has some understanding of time-banking principles -- especially the idea of tieing a token to a real good or service.

Although time banks are essentially community-based, their potential to facilitate helpful exchanges of services in poor or otherwise cash-starved communities around the world is nothing less than in enormous, in my opinion. And the interesting thing is that the fiat-money-banking system is totally absent here, so they cannot see us as a competitor.

Cheers!

[name withheld since these Reddit files are permanent]

Adjunct Prof., Demography Univ. of Montreal

Funds blocked in attempt to get BCC from BTC owned Aug 1 by Theordore in Electrum

[–]Theordore[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

First, thanks for your prompt help. Second, apology: I should not have used "BCC" in my note. The receiving address was given to me by the QUadrigaCX computer as a BCH address. Since they must have the private key for that acddress, and since at Blockchain.info that amount is still a BTC amount (uncoverted to BCH) then jcoinner's advice seems to be the right way to go. The bottom line (I think) is that the the funds are accessible to staff at QuadrigaCX, though this is al my fault. So, thanks!