Love the term sloptimized. People trust the chatbots WAY too much. The numbers are awful. Only 1 out of 200 people who ChatGPT the answer to a question actually verify the source. And often times, the source is manipulated to deliberately sway a decision.
Search engine optimization is something companies do, or used to do, to get their website link at the top of the results page. Now, AI is at the top so companies are manipulating the chatbots. There's also mission creep happening as the newer versions of AI seem to mirror social media algorithms which are focused on answers that keep you engaged (e.g. they ask you a question back...) rather than delivering accurate responses.
Now chatbots are cannibalizing the traditional search engine. More people are asking questions directly of AI tools such as ChatGPT and Claude.... As a result, the SEO industry is scurrying to figure out how to get search bots to recommend a given product—a practice sometimes called “GEO,” for generative-engine optimization. To put it more bluntly, your search results are getting sloptimized....Reddit has become a prime target for attempts to manipulate AI answers. The site frequently tops search results for the sort of hyper-specific queries that AI tools invite users to ask... Last year, Shotland connected online with a man from Tanzania who said he could marshal thousands of mercenary Reddit accounts for a modest fee. Intrigued, Shotland launched an experiment on behalf of one of his clients, a small software firm that he declined to name, citing a confidentiality agreement. Shotland paid the man to put the Reddit sock puppets to work planting favorable mentions of his client on threads relevant to their business, then used monitoring tools to see if chatbots picked up on them. The company’s name began to surface three times more often in AI answers from ChatGPT, Shotland claimed. (OpenAI, which makes ChatGPT, did not respond to my request for comment.)
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/2026/06/google-search-ai-optimization/687495/
@wildgrass saidThat's why they also call the kinds of AI videos Trump posts AI slop, whose purpose is to generate clicks.
Love the term sloptimized. People trust the chatbots WAY too much. The numbers are awful. Only 1 out of 200 people who ChatGPT the answer to a question actually verify the source. And often times, the source is manipulated to deliberately sway a decision.
Search engine optimization is something companies do, or used to do, to get their website link at the top of the resu ...[text shortened]... nt.)[/quote]
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/2026/06/google-search-ai-optimization/687495/
@wildgrass said
Love the term sloptimized. People trust the chatbots WAY too much. The numbers are awful. Only 1 out of 200 people who ChatGPT the answer to a question actually verify the source. And often times, the source is manipulated to deliberately sway a decision.
Search engine optimization is something companies do, or used to do, to get their website link at the top of the resu ...[text shortened]... nt.)[/quote]
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/2026/06/google-search-ai-optimization/687495/
Now chatbots are cannibalizing the traditional search engine. More people are asking questions directly of AI tools such as ChatGPT and Claude....
That may be in part because search engines force your prompt through AI to try to interpret what “you really mean” and you can’t search for specific blocks of text any more. What’s the point of using a search engine any more?
I wish the old search engine functionality would be brought back.
@wildgrass saidMost of my AI searches lately have been rubbish.
Do you trust AI to answer questions? Or are you the outlier, one of those 200 people who actually checks sources?
Like ATY says, once it gives you an answer, it assumes it is right and shuts down any further searches especially similar searches.
@wildgrass saidWell, when people look at reality and clearly see it, they can tell truth from lies, but if reality is what they think it is instead, a little convincing, and the next thing you know, you are in an echo chamber. If you are in an echo chamber, how do you tell the difference between truth and lies, reality and misinformation? The only way is to seek it and be humble enough to admit you were wrong if you were.
Love the term sloptimized. People trust the chatbots WAY too much. The numbers are awful. Only 1 out of 200 people who ChatGPT the answer to a question actually verify the source. And often times, the source is manipulated to deliberately sway a decision.
Search engine optimization is something companies do, or used to do, to get their website link at the top of the resu ...[text shortened]... nt.)[/quote]
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/2026/06/google-search-ai-optimization/687495/
@KellyJay saidIt's easy to get out of an echo chamber. Just start reading stuff you don't normally read. Try to argue the counterargument. Stay away from AI chatbots trained to tell you what you want to hear.
Well, when people look at reality and clearly see it, they can tell truth from lies, but if reality is what they think it is instead, a little convincing, and the next thing you know, you are in an echo chamber. If you are in an echo chamber, how do you tell the difference between truth and lies, reality and misinformation? The only way is to seek it and be humble enough to admit you were wrong if you were.
Only 1 in 200 people check the source when they ask AI a question. That's pitiful.
@wildgrass saidI agree, just as AI was programmed to lean towards a point of view, do you think it is also happening in the Major News Agencies when many times they all have some variety of the same talking points, many times common words are used in supposedly independent networks? What would make you think AI and the news agencies do not have that in common? As I suggested, the very first thing we need to look at most critically is our own point of view. We can, if we are not careful, ignore things that, if taken seriously, show us we could be wrong.
It's easy to get out of an echo chamber. Just start reading stuff you don't normally read. Try to argue the counterargument. Stay away from AI chatbots trained to tell you what you want to hear.
Only 1 in 200 people check the source when they ask AI a question. That's pitiful.
@KellyJay saidNo you are completely misinterpreting. If you are in an echo chamber it is completely your fault, it is easy to get out of because there are lots of points of view from many smart people. Most people who are in echo chambers prefer to stay there. Thinking is hard.
I agree, just as AI was programmed to lean towards a point of view, do you think it is also happening in the Major News Agencies when many times they all have some variety of the same talking points, many times common words are used in supposedly independent networks? What would make you think AI and the news agencies do not have that in common? As I suggested, the very fi ...[text shortened]... . We can, if we are not careful, ignore things that, if taken seriously, show us we could be wrong.
@wildgrass saidMy point is we ALL can fall into this; we, not just others, but I must look at my own beliefs with the most skeptical eyes, knowing I can be wrong. I may trust in things that are not true, or deny things that are simply because of my bias. Singing the same song everyone else is singing is not necessarily the right thing to do. If you think the truth is not there, it is doubly important to stay true to what you accept as truth and examine it. When disagreement just turns into personal attacks, they are no longer seeking truth; they are demanding someone agree with them, and if they think my truth or your truth is the way to go, then it immediately gets personal because people have personalized their ideas, so disagreeing with them would be akin to an assault on them. Then, for some, disagreements create unsafe places and practices rather than variations of views on any given topic. It can be difficult to stay on topic when all topics are matters of identity. Thinking people, if they can articulate why they believe what they do, can put together an argument; however, those driven by feelings, you immediately see their emotions, not their thoughts, on a topic.
No you are completely misinterpreting. If you are in an echo chamber it is completely your fault, it is easy to get out of because there are lots of points of view from many smart people. Most people who are in echo chambers prefer to stay there. Thinking is hard.
@KellyJay said“Thinking people, if they can articulate why they believe what they do, can put together an argument; however, those driven by feelings, you immediately see their emotions, not their thoughts, on a topic.”
My point is we ALL can fall into this; we, not just others, but I must look at my own beliefs with the most skeptical eyes, knowing I can be wrong. I may trust in things that are not true, or deny things that are simply because of my bias. Singing the same song everyone else is singing is not necessarily the right thing to do. If you think the truth is not there, it is do ...[text shortened]... wever, those driven by feelings, you immediately see their emotions, not their thoughts, on a topic.
Exactly…that is why most libs on here devolve into name calling and perverted sexual terms, they can’t sustain a rational argument.
@KellyJay saidA simple moment of self-reflection and self-correction fixes this, so no we cannot all fall into an echo chamber. Just ask someone you disagree with to explain themselves, listen, ask for evidence, and present your own counter-argument that also includes evidence. Personal attacks are only necessary if the other person is deliberately distorting reality by presenting false evidence.
My point is we ALL can fall into this; we, not just others, but I must look at my own beliefs with the most skeptical eyes, knowing I can be wrong. I may trust in things that are not true, or deny things that are simply because of my bias. Singing the same song everyone else is singing is not necessarily the right thing to do. If you think the truth is not there, it is do ...[text shortened]... wever, those driven by feelings, you immediately see their emotions, not their thoughts, on a topic.
You can disagree after that, but just lay it all out there. Positive and negative, make the case with data. The best evidence makes for the most convincing argument.