Replying to @⁨beep@piefed.world⁩

The drop correlates with the time reddit locked down old reddit from accessing anonymously/without logging in to avoid AI scraping. Reddit themselves did this.

EDOT: And OpenAI also changed how the web search works; forbes.com/…/reddit-nearly-vanishes-from-chatgpt-…

ForbesReddit Nearly Vanishes From ChatGPT Citations After OpenAI Search Change, Report SuggestsReddit's share of ChatGPT citations collapsed 86% to 0.5% after OpenAI changed how ChatGPT Search works — the same week Reddit joined the S&P 500.

Replying to @⁨im_fine_sandy@nord.pub⁩

They actually did use old reddit, as confirmed by reddit itself, as confirmed by massive drop after the change. It was simply far easier to scrape old reddit (pre-rendered instead of relying on JavaScript and dynamic content load)

engadget.com/…/old-reddit-could-be-the-next-casua…

EngadgetOld Reddit could be the next casualty of Reddit's war on AI scraping - EngadgetThe company is also planning to retire its public API.

Replying to an earlier post

You seem to have misunderstood, and the article you linked doesn’t contradict what I’ve said.

Wealthy, sophisticated LLM developers would not have been scraping old reddit. They would pay reddit for API access.

Shutting down old reddit closes the door on back yard developers, not OpenAI.

Additionally, when you run a prompt in a chatbot, it doesn’t scurry away and scrape old reddit and then formulate an answer. The scraping of content is going on while the model is being developed.

Replying to an earlier post

As if wealthy people pay for stuff they could have for free. Literally everybody had their copyright infringed from the training of GenAI. Authors, Journalists, Artists, Musicians, Regisseurs, the list is endless. Unless you sue, you won’t see any compensation from them. By now you should know that companies only play fair if they’re forced to, otherwise literally anything goes.

It’s quite naive to believe they would pay for API access, tbh.

Replying to an earlier post

I don't know how many do, but they're fools if they don't.

You'd think that since those links are there, that the information on those links matches what that LLM says, and thus not a hallucination, but at least twice, I've found the information straight up wasn't there, or the LLM had misread / misinterpreted the page's content.

But then I may not be a regular user. I ask a question maybe once every one to two weeks because a regular search finds nothing and, like I say, I prefer to check the sources.

Replying to an earlier post

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/07/22/google-users-are-less-likely-to-click-on-links-when-an-ai-summary-appears-in-the-results/

That’s just for Google’s AI summaries, but it’s the only one with actual methodology disclosed I could find on a quick (non-AI) search.

Plenty of SEO mills with their own “studies” too, and the trend is similar. People don’t interact with the source sites or if they do it’s extremely seldom.

They (SEO mills) are currently trying to flip the gaslight towards “Worry not dear Webmaster, now you just have to make sure your content is now formed so it’s engaging for AI search and engage able right from the AI!” type shit.

I’m tired boss, and I’m not even generally (as in, in all aspects) anti-AI. Yet, I guess.

Replying to an earlier post

Ah yes, I’ve noticed lots of SEO consultant companies are trying to pivot into “we’ll help you to make AI scrape your website more so you show up in the AI search”.

I hadn’t seen the study before, thanks. That’s what I expected, honestly. I guess you could argue they are still building brand awareness, because people subconsciously note the brand as the source, but I don’t think that amounts to much.