https://www.archytasdigital.com/
It annoyed me how much all the AI tracking services were charging, so I made my own.It's free, downloadable, runs on Windows and Mac, and is a bring-your-own-API-keys alternative to the likes of Peec and Profound. It tracks AI visibility across ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, Perplexity, and Google's AI Overviews and AI mode. It also has tools for extracting the fanout queries AI makes when searching...
It makes sense for it to be expensive, mind. The unit cost of serving an LLM response is so much higher than the unit cost of serving a bunch of Instagram posts, or traditional search results or whatever.
But price too highly, most advertisers won't be able to justify them. Why spend $60 for what you can buy from Meta for $6? It's a brave media buyer who runs with that as a long term strategy. But if you don't price highly, you're just offsetting some of the losses. The whole reason Google, Meta et all's ad networks exploded what because they cost less to get reach than traditional media did before, which opened them up to a bazillion small businesses who otherwise didn't have the capital to get off the ground through traditional media. ChatGPT's will cost more than what's available now. Massively more. There's not a lot of history of that working out!
They'll get some buyers for a little while, the $60 vs $6 equation balances out if the ads are 10x more effective, and companies will throw a bit of money into campaigns to get a feel for how well they perform.
(Google is in a different position, they make basically near infinite margin on other ad types and can lump budgets in together to get still-attractive blended CPMs. It's a hit, but it's worth taking to protect their wider network, just like they did for years when Youtube wasn't remotely profitable.)
If there's a difficult, unpopular decision to be made, C-suite types often can't just come out and talk about it openly because the very act of doing that will maximise the amount of ill will and damage that decision will cause throughout the business unnecessarily. So the role of middle management is to be the 'bad cop' and pass that message on in a limited way to the affected people, who then blame them for it.
Just because the CEO isn't the one saying it, it doesn't mean it's not coming from the CEO. Part of being a middle manager, maybe even the biggest part, is being the messenger whose paid to get shot.
My take on what happened is that Google has a metric in their algorithms called 'Query deserves freshness' - basically, identifying a search where the user isn't going to want old information, and artifically promoting more recent pages over better linked to but older documents. If someone wants to see the weather, they probably aren't looking for the weather on an extremely weird day 4 years ago just because a lot of people linked to it back then.
They seem to have reduced that down, I suspect to reduce search being flooded with misinformation during the pandemic when all information was recent and the more controversial takes sometimes got more coverage. As an unexpected result, if I'm searching a dev query, it ends up surfacing a ton of results from years ago. Yeah, those pages may have more links and history and probably seem to an algorithm to be more trustworthy, but if it's for a library 20 versions old that long since stopped working the way the stackoverflow answer from 2011 says it did, that's pretty useless.
Still, as a trade off, probably better me having to use the time filter dropdown to limit results to recent one's than someone necking bleach and horse de-wormer when they get Covid. And while I'm not quite as onboard with GPT being the death of search as some, dev documentation is one of those areas where generative AI is genuinely a better tool than web search ever was.