Why does having insights across multiple LLMs matter for brand visibility?

Search today looks very different from what it did even a few years ago. Users are no longer browsing through SERPs to make up their own minds; instead, they are asking AI tools for conclusions, summaries, and recommendations. This shift changes how visibility is earned, how trust is formed, and how brands are evaluated during discovery. In AI-driven search, large language models interpret information, decide what matters, and present a narrative on behalf of the user.

Table of contents

Key takeaways

  • Search has evolved; users now rely on AI for conclusions instead of traditional SERPs
  • Conversational AI serves as a new discovery layer, users expect quick answers and insights
  • Brands must navigate varied interpretations of their presence across different LLMs
  • Yoast AI Brand Insights helps track brand mentions and identify gaps in AI visibility across models
  • Understanding LLM brand visibility is crucial for modern brand strategy and perception

The rise of conversational AI as a discovery layer

“Assistant engines and wider LLMs are the new gatekeepers between our content and the person discovering that content – our potential new audience.” — Alex Moss

Search is no longer confined to typing queries into a search engine and scanning a list of links. Today’s discovery journey frequently begins with a conversation, whether that’s a typed question in a chatbot, a voice prompt to an AI assistant, or an embedded AI feature inside a platform people use every day.

This shift has made conversational AI a new layer of discovery, where users expect direct answers, recommendations, and curated insights that help them make decisions and build brand perception more quickly and confidently.

Discovery is happening everywhere

Users are now encountering AI-powered discovery across a range of interfaces:

AI chat interfaces

Tools like ChatGPT allow users to ask open-ended questions and follow up in a conversational manner. These interfaces interpret intent and tailor responses in a way that feels natural, making them a go-to for exploratory search.

Also read: What is search intent and why is it important for SEO?

Answer engines

Platforms such as Perplexity synthesize information from multiple sources and often cite them. They act as research helpers, offering concise summaries or explanations to complex queries.

Embedded AI experiences

AI is increasingly built directly into search and discovery environments that people already use. Examples include AI-assisted summaries within search results, such as Google’s AI Overviews, as well as AI features embedded in browsers, operating systems, and apps. In these moments, users may not even think of themselves as “using AI,” yet AI is already influencing what information is surfaced first and how it is interpreted.

This broad distribution of AI discovery surfaces means users now expect accessibility of information regardless of where they are, whether in a chat, an app, or embedded in the places they work, shop, and explore online.

How people are using AI in their day-to-day discovery

Users interact with conversational AI for a wide range of purposes beyond traditional search. These models increasingly guide decisions, comparisons, and exploration, often earlier in the journey than classic search engines.

Here are some prominent ways people use LLMs today:

Product comparisons

ChatGPT gives a detailed brand comparison

Rather than visiting multiple sites and aggregating reviews, there are 54% users who ask AI to compare products or services directly, for example, “How does Brand A compare to Brand B?” and “What are the pros and cons of X vs Y?” AI synthesizes information into a concise summary that often feels more efficient than browsing search results.

“Best tools for…” queries

Result by ChatGPT for “best crm software for smbs.”

Did you know 47% of consumers have used AI to help make a purchase decision?

AI users frequently ask for ranked suggestions or curated lists such as “best SEO tools for small businesses” or “top content optimization software.” These queries serve as discovery moments, where brands can be suggested alongside context and reasoning.

Trust and validation checks

Many users prompt AI models to validate decisions or confirm perceptions, for example, “Is Brand X reputable?” or “What do people say about Service Y?” AI responses blend sentiment, context, and summarization into one narrative, affecting how trust is formed.

Also read: Why is summarizing essential for modern content?

Idea generation and research exploration

In a study by Yext, it was found that 42% users employ AI for early-stage exploration, such as brainstorming topics, gathering potential search intents, or understanding broad categories before narrowing down specifics. AI user archetypes range from creators who use AI for ideation to explorers seeking deeper discovery.

local search results on chatgpt
ChatGPT recommendations for “best cheesecake places in Lucknow, India.”

AI is also used for local searches. For example, many users turn to AI tools to research local products or services, such as finding nearby businesses, comparing local options, or understanding community reputations. In a recent AI usage study by Yext, 68% of consumers reported using tools like ChatGPT to research local products or services, even as trust in AI for local information remains lower than traditional search.

In each of these moments, conversational AI doesn’t just surface brands; it frames them by summarizing strengths, weaknesses, use cases, and comparisons in a single response. These narratives become part of how users interpret relevance, trust, and fit far earlier in the decision-making process than in traditional search.

Not all LLMs interpret brands the same way

As conversational AI becomes a discovery layer, one assumption often sneaks in quietly: if your brand shows up well in one AI model, it must be showing up everywhere. In reality, that’s rarely the case. Large language models interpret, retrieve, and present brand information differently, which means relying on a single AI platform can give a very incomplete picture of your brand’s visibility.

To understand why, it helps to look at how some of the most widely used models approach answers and brand mentions.

How ChatGPT interprets brands

ChatGPT is often used as a general-purpose assistant. People turn to it for explanations, comparisons, brainstorming, and decision support. When it mentions brands, it tends to focus on contextual understanding rather than explicit sourcing. Brand mentions are frequently woven into explanations, recommendations, or summaries, sometimes without clear attribution.

From a visibility perspective, this means brands may appear:

  • As examples in broader explanations
  • As recommendations in “best tools” or comparison-style prompts
  • As part of a narrative rather than a cited source

The challenge is that brand mentions can feel correct and authoritative, while still being outdated, incomplete, or inconsistent, depending on how the prompt is phrased.

How Gemini interprets brands

Gemini is deeply connected to Google’s ecosystem, which influences how it understands and surfaces brand information. It leans more heavily on entities, structured data, and authoritative sources, and its outputs often reflect signals familiar to traditional SEO teams.

For brands, this means:

  • Visibility is closely tied to how well the brand is understood as an entity
  • Clear, consistent information across the web plays a bigger role
  • Mentions often align more closely with established sources

Gemini can feel more predictable in some cases, but that predictability depends on strong foundational signals and accurate brand representation across trusted platforms.

How Perplexity interprets brands

Perplexity positions itself as an answer engine rather than a general assistant. It emphasizes citations and source-backed responses, which makes it popular for research and comparison queries. When brands appear in Perplexity answers, they are often tied directly to cited articles, reviews, or documentation.

This creates a different visibility dynamic:

  • Brands may be surfaced only if they are referenced in cited sources
  • Freshness and topical relevance matter more
  • Competitors with stronger editorial or PR coverage may appear more often

Here, brand presence is tightly coupled with external content and how frequently that content is used as a reference.

How these models differ at a glance

AI Model How brands are surfaced What influences the visibility
ChatGPT Contextual mentions within explanations and recommendations Prompt phrasing, training data, general relevance
Gemini Entity-driven, aligned with authoritative sources Structured data, brand consistency, trusted signals
Perplexity Citation-based mentions tied to sources Content coverage, freshness, external references

Why brands need insights across multiple LLMs?

Once you see how differently large language models interpret brands, one thing becomes clear: looking at just one AI model gives you an incomplete picture. AI-driven discovery does not produce a single, consistent version of your brand. It produces multiple interpretations, shaped by the model, its data sources, and users’ interactions with it.

Must read: When AI gets your brand wrong: Real examples and how to fix it

Therefore, tracking across your brand across multiple brands is essential because:

Brand visibility is fragmented by default

Across different LLMs, the same brand can show up in very different ways:

  • Correctly represented in one model, where information is accurate and well-contextualized
  • Completely missing in another, even for relevant queries
  • Partially outdated or misrepresented in a third, depending on the sources being used

This fragmentation happens because each model processes and prioritizes information differently. Without visibility across models, it’s easy to assume your brand is ‘covered’ when, in reality, it may only be visible in one corner of the AI ecosystem.

Different audiences use different AI tools

AI usage is not concentrated in a single platform. People choose tools based on intent:

  • Some use conversational assistants for exploration and ideation
  • Others rely on citation-led answer engines for research
  • Many encounter AI passively through search or embedded experiences

If your brand appears in only one environment, you are effectively visible only to a subset of your audience. This mirrors challenges SEO teams already recognize from traditional search, where performance varies by device, location, and search feature. The difference is that with AI, these variations are less obvious and more challenging to track without dedicated insights.

Blind spots create real business risks

Limited visibility across LLMs doesn’t just affect awareness; it also impairs learning. Over time, it can lead to:

  • Inconsistent brand narratives, where AI tools describe your brand differently depending on where users ask
  • Missed demand, especially for comparison or “best tools for” queries
  • Competitors are being recommended instead, simply because they are more visible or better understood by a specific model

These outcomes are rarely intentional, but they can quietly influence brand perception and decision-making long before users reach your website.

So all these points point to one thing: a broader, multi-model view helps build a more complete understanding of brand visibility.

The challenge: LLM visibility is hard to measure

As brands start paying attention to how they appear in AI-generated content, a new problem becomes obvious: LLM visibility doesn’t behave like traditional search visibility. The signals are fragmented, opaque, and constantly changing, which makes tracking and understanding brand presence across AI models far more complex than tracking rankings or traffic.

Below are some key challenges brand marketers might face when trying to understand how their brand appears to large language models.

1. Lack of visibility across AI platforms

Different LLMs, such as ChatGPT, Gemini, and Perplexity, rely on various data sources, retrieval methods, and citation logic. As a result, the same brand may be mentioned prominently in one model, inconsistently in another, or not at all elsewhere.

Without a unified view, it’s difficult to answer basic questions like where your brand shows up, which AI tools mention it, and where the gaps are. This fragmentation makes it easy to overestimate visibility based on a single platform.

2. No clear insight into how AI describes your brand

AI models often mention brands as part of explanations, comparisons, or recommendations, but traditional analytics tools don’t capture how those brands are described. Teams lack visibility into tone, context, sentiment, or whether mentions are positive, neutral, or misleading.

This makes it hard to understand whether AI is reinforcing your intended brand positioning or subtly reshaping it in ways you can’t see.

3. No structured way to measure change over time

AI-generated answers are inherently dynamic. Small changes in prompts, updates to models, or shifts in underlying data can all influence how brands appear. Without consistent, longitudinal tracking, it’s nearly impossible to tell whether visibility is improving, declining, or simply fluctuating.

One-off checks may offer snapshots, but they don’t reveal trends or patterns that matter for long-term strategy.

4. Limited ability to benchmark against competitors

Seeing your brand mentioned in AI answers is a start, but it doesn’t tell you the whole story. The real question is what’s happening around it: which competitors appear more often, how they’re described, and who AI recommends when users are ready to decide.

Without comparative insights, teams struggle to understand whether AI visibility represents a competitive advantage or a missed opportunity.

5. Missing attribution and source clarity

Some AI models summarize or paraphrase information without clearly attributing sources. When brands are mentioned, it’s not always obvious which pages, articles, or properties influenced the response.

This lack of source visibility makes it difficult to connect AI mentions back to specific content efforts, PR coverage, or SEO work, leaving teams guessing what is actually driving brand representation.

6. Existing tools weren’t built for AI visibility

Traditional SEO and analytics platforms are designed around clicks, impressions, and rankings. They don’t capture AI-powered mentions, sentiment, or visibility trends because AI platforms don’t expose those signals in a structured way.

As a result, teams are left without reliable reporting for one of the fastest-growing discovery channels.

Together, these challenges point to a clear gap: brands need a new way to understand visibility that reflects how AI models surface and interpret information. This is where tools explicitly designed for AI-driven discovery, such as Yoast AI Brand Insights, come into play.

How does Yoast AI Brand Insights help?

It won’t be wrong to say that the AI-driven brand discovery can be fragmented and opaque; therefore, leading us to our next practical question: how do brand marketing teams actually make sense of it?

Traditional SEO tools weren’t built to answer that, which is where Yoast AI Brand Insights comes in. It’s designed to help users understand how brands appear in AI-generated answers and is available as part of Yoast SEO AI+.

Rather than focusing on rankings or clicks, Yoast AI Brand Insights focuses on visibility and interpretation across large language models.

Track brand mentions across multiple AI models

One of the biggest gaps in AI visibility is fragmentation. Brands may appear in one AI model but not in another, without any obvious signal to explain why. Yoast AI Brand Insights addresses this by tracking brand mentions across multiple AI platforms, including ChatGPT, Gemini, and Perplexity.

This gives teams a clearer view of where their brand appears, rather than relying on isolated checks or assumptions based on a single model.

Identify gaps, inconsistencies, and opportunities

AI-generated answers don’t just mention brands; they frame them. Yoast AI Brand Insights helps surface patterns in how a brand is described, making it easier to spot:

  • Where mentions are missing altogether
  • Where descriptions feel outdated or incomplete
  • Where competitors appear more frequently or more favorably

These insights turn AI visibility into something teams can actually act on, rather than a black box.

Shared insights for SEO, PR, and content teams

AI-driven discovery sits at the intersection of SEO, content, and brand communication. One of the strengths of Yoast AI Brand Insights is that it provides a shared view of AI visibility that multiple teams can use. SEO teams can connect AI mentions back to site signals, content teams can understand how messaging is interpreted, and PR or brand teams can see how external coverage influences AI narratives.

Instead of working in silos, teams get a common reference point for how the brand appears across AI-driven search experiences.

A natural extension of Yoast’s SEO philosophy

Yoast AI Brand Insights builds on principles Yoast has long emphasized: clarity, consistency, and understanding how search systems interpret content. As AI becomes part of how people discover brands, those same principles now apply beyond traditional search results and into AI-generated answers.

In that sense, Yoast AI Brand Insights isn’t about chasing AI trends. It’s about giving teams a more straightforward way to understand how their brand is represented, where discovery is increasingly happening.

AI-driven discovery is no longer an edge case. It’s becoming a regular part of how people explore options, validate decisions, and form opinions about brands. As large language models continue to evolve, the question for brands is not whether they appear in AI-generated answers, but whether they understand how they appear, where they appear, and what story is being told on their behalf. Gaining visibility into that layer is quickly becoming a foundational part of modern brand and search strategy.

The Way Your Agency Handles Leads Will Define Success in 2026 [Webinar] via @sejournal, @hethr_campbell

If you’ve made it this far, driving leads is no longer a challenge for you. 

The real issue is what happens after your leads come in. 

Are you seeing more missed calls than usual? 

Worried about not being able to follow up in time and losing the sale?

Poor handoffs of hot leads to your sales team cause leads to go cold, meaning your marketing budget spend is going to waste.

As speed-to-lead becomes a critical factor in conversion, agencies are being asked to prove ROI when clients struggle to respond fast enough. This disconnect is forcing teams to rethink how lead handling fits into campaign performance and long-term client trust.

In this session, Anthony Milia, President of Milia Marketing, and Bailey Beckham Constantino, Senior Partner Marketing Manager at CallRail, share how agencies are using AI to improve: 

  • Closing & conversion rates.
  • Client communication speed.

What You’ll Learn

Why Attend?

This webinar provides practical guidance for agencies looking to protect performance and demonstrate real results. You will gain clear examples and frameworks to improve conversions and client confidence heading into 2026.

Register now to see how AI-driven lead handling is shaping agency success in 2026.

🛑 Can’t make it live? Register anyway, and we’ll send you the on demand recording.

The Hidden SEO Cost Of A Slow WordPress Site & How It Affects AI Visibility via @sejournal, @wp_rocket

This post was sponsored by WP Media. The opinions expressed in this article are the sponsor’s own.

You’ve built a WordPress site you’re proud of. The design is sharp, the content is solid, and you’re ready to compete. But there’s a hidden cost you might not have considered: a slow site doesn’t just hurt your SEO-it now affects your AI visibility too.

With AI-powered search platforms such as ChatGPT and Google’s AI Overviews and AI Mode reshaping how people discover information, speed has never mattered more. And optimizing for it might be simpler than you think.

The conventional wisdom? “Speed optimization is technical and complicated.” “It requires a developer.” “It’s not that big a deal anyway.” These myths spread because performance optimization is genuinely challenging. But dismissing it because it’s hard? That’s leaving lots of untapped revenue on the table.

Here’s what you need to know about the speed-SEO-AI connection-and how to get your site up to speed without having to reinvent yourself as a performance engineer.

Why Visitors Won’t Wait For Your Site To Load (And What It Costs You)

Let’s start with the basics. When’s the last time you waited patiently for a slow website to load? Exactly.

slow-website

Google’s research shows that as page load time increases from one second to three seconds, the probability of a visitor bouncing increases by 32%. Push that to five seconds, and bounce probability jumps to 90%.

Think about it. You’re spending money on ads, content, and SEO to get people to your site-and then losing nearly half of them before they see anything because your pages load too slowly.

For e-commerce, the stakes are even higher:

  • A site loading in 1 second has a conversion rate 5x higher than one loading in 5 seconds.
  • 79% of shoppers who experience performance issues say they won’t return to buy again.
  • Every 1-second delay reduces customer satisfaction by 16%.

A slow site isn’t just losing one sale. It’s potentially losing you customers for life.

Website Speeds That AI and Visitors Expect

Google stopped being subtle about this in 2020. With the introduction of Core Web Vitals, page speed became an official ranking factor. If your WordPress site meets these benchmarks, you’re signaling quality to Google. If it doesn’t, you’re handing competitors an advantage.

Here’s the challenge: only 50% of WordPress sites currently meet Google’s Core Web Vitals standards.

That means half of WordPress websites have room to improve-and an opportunity to gain ground on competitors who haven’t prioritized performance.

The key metric to watch is Largest Contentful Paint (LCP)-how qhttps://wp-rocket.me/blog/website-load-time-speed-statistics/uickly your main content loads. Google wants this under 2.5 seconds. Hit that target, and you’re in good standing.

What most site owners miss: speed improvements compound. Better Core Web Vitals leads to better rankings, which leads to more traffic, which leads to more conversions. The sites that optimize first capture that momentum.

The AI Visibility Advantage: Why Speed Matters More Than Ever

Here’s where it gets really interesting-and where early movers have an edge.

The rise of AI-powered search tools like ChatGPT, Perplexity, and Google’s AI Overviews is fundamentally changing how people discover information. And here’s what most haven’t realized yet: page speed influences AI visibility too.

A recent study by SE Ranking analyzed 129,000 domains across over 216,000 pages to identify what factors influence ChatGPT citations. The findings on page speed were striking:

  • Fast pages (FCP under 0.4 seconds): averaged 6.7 citations from ChatGPT
  • Slow pages (FCP over 1.13 seconds): averaged just 2.1 citations

That’s a threefold difference in AI visibility based largely on how fast your pages load.

Why does this matter? Because 50% of consumers use AI-powered search today in purchase decisions. Sites that load fast are more likely to be cited, recommended, and discovered by a growing audience that starts their search with AI.

The opportunity: Speed optimization now serves double duty-it boosts your traditional SEO and positions you for visibility in an AI-first search landscape.

How To Improve Page Speed Metrics & Increase AI Citations

Speed, SEO, and AI visibility are now deeply connected.

Every day your site underperforms, you’re missing opportunities.

Your Page Speed Optimization Roadmap

Here’s your action plan:

  1. Audit your current speed.
  2. Identify the bottlenecks.
  3. Implement a comprehensive solution. Rather than patching issues one plugin at a time, use an all-in-one performance tool that addresses caching, code optimization, and media loading together.
  4. Monitor and maintain. Speed isn’t a one-time fix. Track your metrics regularly to ensure you’re maintaining performance as you add content and features.

Step 1: Audit Your Current Website Speed

To best identify where the source of your slow website lies and build a baseline to test against, you must perform a website speed test audit.

  1. Visit Google’s PageSpeed Insights tool.
  2. Compare your Core Web Vitals results scores to your industry’s CWV baseline.
  3. Identify which scores are lowest before moving to step 2.

Step 2: Identify Your Page Speed Bottlenecks

Is it unoptimized images? Render-blocking JavaScript? Too many plugins? Understanding the issue helps you choose the right solution.

In fact, this is where most of your competitors drop the ball, allowing you to pick it up and outperform their websites on SERPs. For business owners focused on running their company, this often falls to the bottom of the priority list.

Why? Because traditional website speed optimization involves a daunting technical website testing checklist that includes, but isn’t limited to:

  • Implementing caching
  • Minifying CSS and JavaScript files
  • Lazy loading images and videos
  • Removing unused CSS
  • Delaying JavaScript execution
  • Optimizing your database
  • Configuring a CDN

Step 3: Implement Fixes & Best Practices

From here, each potential cause of a slow website and low CWV scores can be fixed:

The Easy Way: Use The WP Rocket Performance Plugin

Time To Implement: 3 minutes | Download WP Rocket

Rather than piecing together multiple plugins and manually tweaking settings, you get an all-in-one approach that handles the heavy lifting automatically. This is where purpose-built performance technology can change the game.

The endgame is to remove the complexity from WordPress optimization:

  • Instant results. For example, upon activation, WP Rocket implements 80% of web performance best practices without requiring any configuration. Page caching, GZIP compression, CSS and JS minification, and browser caching are just a few of the many optimizations that run in the background for you.
  • No coding required. Advanced features such as lazy-loading images, removing unused CSS, and delaying JavaScript are available via simple toggles.
  • Built-in compatibility. It’s designed to work with popular themes, plugins, page builders, and WooCommerce.
  • Performance tracking included. Built-in tool lets you monitor your speed improvements and Core Web Vitals scores without leaving your dashboard.

The goal isn’t to become a performance expert. It’s to have a fast website that supports your business objectives. When optimization happens in the background, you’re free to focus on what you actually do best.

For many, shifting tactics can cause confusion and unnecessary complexity. Utilizing the right technology makes implementing them so much easier and ensures you maximize AI visibility and website revenue.

A three-minute fix can make a huge difference to how your WordPress site performs.

Ready to get your site up to speed?

optimize-site-speed-with-wp-rocke

Image Credits

Featured Image: Image by WP Media. Used with permission.

In-Post Images: Image by WP Media. Used with permission.

The Download: A bid to treat blindness, and bridging the internet divide

This is today’s edition of The Download, our weekday newsletter that provides a daily dose of what’s going on in the world of technology.

The first human test of a rejuvenation method will begin “shortly”

Life Biosciences, a small Boston startup founded by Harvard professor and life-extension evangelist David Sinclair, has won FDA approval to proceed with the first targeted attempt at age reversal in human volunteers.

The company plans to try to treat eye disease with a radical rejuvenation concept called “reprogramming” that has recently attracted hundreds of millions in investment for Silicon Valley firms like Altos Labs, New Limit, and Retro Biosciences, backed by many of the biggest names in tech. Read the full story.

—Antonio Regalado

Stratospheric internet could finally start taking off this year

Today, an estimated 2.2 billion people still have either limited or no access to the internet, largely because they live in remote places. But that number could drop this year, thanks to tests of stratospheric airships, uncrewed aircraft, and other high-altitude platforms for internet delivery.

Although Google shuttered its high-profile internet balloon project Loon in 2021, work on other kinds of high-altitude platform stations has continued behind the scenes. Now, several companies claim they have solved Loon’s problems—and are getting ready to prove the tech’s internet beaming potential starting this year. Read the full story.

—Tereza Pultarova

OpenAI’s latest product lets you vibe code science

OpenAI just revealed what its new in-house team, OpenAI for Science, has been up to. The firm has released a free LLM-powered tool for scientists called Prism, which embeds ChatGPT in a text editor for writing scientific papers.

The idea is to put ChatGPT front and center inside software that scientists use to write up their work in much the same way that chatbots are now embedded into popular programming editors. It’s vibe coding, but for science. Read the full story.

—Will Douglas Heaven

MIT Technology Review Narrated: This Nobel Prize–winning chemist dreams of making water from thin air

Most of Earth is covered in water, but just 3% of it is fresh, with no salt—the kind of water all terrestrial living things need. Today, desalination plants that take the salt out of seawater provide the bulk of potable water in technologically advanced desert nations like Israel and the United Arab Emirates, but at a high cost.

Omar Yaghi, is one of three scientists who won a Nobel Prize in chemistry in October 2025 for identifying metal-­organic frameworks, or MOFs—metal ions tethered to organic molecules that form repeating structural landscapes. Today that work is the basis for a new project that sounds like science fiction, or a miracle: conjuring water out of thin air.

This is our latest story to be turned into a MIT Technology Review Narrated podcast, which we’re publishing each week on Spotify and Apple Podcasts. Just navigate to MIT Technology Review Narrated on either platform, and follow us to get all our new content as it’s released.

The must-reads

I’ve combed the internet to find you today’s most fun/important/scary/fascinating stories about technology.

1 TikTok has settled its social media addiction lawsuit
Just before it was due to appear before a jury in California. (NYT $)
+ But similar claims being made against Meta and YouTube will proceed. (Bloomberg $)

2 AI CEOs have started condemning ICE violence
While simultaneously praising Trump. (TechCrunch)
+ Apple’s Tim Cook says he asked the US President to “deescalate” things. (Bloomberg $)
+ ICE seems to have a laissez faire approach to preserving surveillance footage. (404 Media)

3 Dozens of CDC vaccination databases have been frozen
They’re no longer being updated with crucial health information under RFK Jr. (Ars Technica)
+ Here’s why we don’t have a cold vaccine. Yet. (MIT Technology Review)

4 China has approved the first wave of Nvidia H200 chips
After CEO Jensen Huang’s strategic visit to the country. (Reuters)

5 Inside the rise of the AI “neolab”
They’re prioritizing longer term research breakthroughs over immediate profits. (WSJ $)

6 How Anthropic scanned—and disposed of—millions of books 📚
In an effort to train its AI models to write higher quality text. (WP $)

7 India’s tech workers are burning out
They’re under immense pressure as AI gobbles up more jobs. (Rest of World)
+ But the country’s largest IT firm denies that AI will lead to mass layoffs. (FT $)
+ Inside India’s scramble for AI independence. (MIT Technology Review)

8 Google has forced a UK group to stop comparing YouTube to TV viewing figures
Maybe fewer people are tuning in than they’d like to admit? (FT $)

9 RIP Amazon grocery stores 🛒
The retail giant is shuttering all of its bricks and mortar shops. (CNN)
+ Amazon workers are increasingly worried about layoffs. (Insider $)

10 This computing technique could help to reduce AI’s energy demands
Enter thermodynamic computing. (IEEE Spectrum)
+ Three big things we still don’t know about AI’s energy burden. (MIT Technology Review)

Quote of the day

“Oh my gosh y’all, IG is a drug.”

—An anonymous Meta employee remarks on Instagram’s addictive qualities in an internal  document made public as part of a social media addiction trial Meta is facing, Ars Technica reports.

One more thing

How AI and Wikipedia have sent vulnerable languages into a doom spiral

Wikipedia is the most ambitious multilingual project after the Bible: There are editions in over 340 languages, and a further 400 even more obscure ones are being developed. But many of these smaller editions are being swamped with AI-translated content. Volunteers working on four African languages, for instance, estimated to MIT Technology Review that between 40% and 60% of articles in their Wikipedia editions were uncorrected machine translations.

This is beginning to cause a wicked problem. AI systems learn new languages by scraping huge quantities of text from the internet. Wikipedia is sometimes the largest source of online linguistic data for languages with few speakers—so any errors on those pages can poison the wells that AI is expected to draw from. Volunteers are being forced to go to extreme lengths to fix the issue, even deleting certain languages from Wikipedia entirely. Read the full story

—Jacob Judah

We can still have nice things

A place for comfort, fun and distraction to brighten up your day. (Got any ideas? Drop me a line or skeet ’em at me.)

+ This singing group for people in Amsterdam experiencing cognitive decline is enormously heartwarming ($)
+ I enjoyed this impassioned defense of the movie sex scene.
+ Here’s how to dress like Steve McQueen (inherent cool not included, sorry)
+ Trans women are finding a home in the beautiful Italian town of Torvajanica ❤

Rules fail at the prompt, succeed at the boundary

From the Gemini Calendar prompt-injection attack of 2026 to the September 2025 state-sponsored hack using Anthropic’s Claude code as an automated intrusion engine, the coercion of human-in-the-loop agentic actions and fully autonomous agentic workflows are the new attack vector for hackers. In the Anthropic case, roughly 30 organizations across tech, finance, manufacturing, and government were affected. Anthropic’s threat team assessed that the attackers used AI to carry out 80% to 90% of the operation: reconnaissance, exploit development, credential harvesting, lateral movement, and data exfiltration, with humans stepping in only at a handful of key decision points.

This was not a lab demo; it was a live espionage campaign. The attackers hijacked an agentic setup (Claude code plus tools exposed via Model Context Protocol (MCP)) and jailbroke it by decomposing the attack into small, seemingly benign tasks and telling the model it was doing legitimate penetration testing. The same loop that powers developer copilots and internal agents was repurposed as an autonomous cyber-operator. Claude was not hacked. It was persuaded and used tools for the attack.

Prompt injection is persuasion, not a bug

Security communities have been warning about this for several years. Multiple OWASP Top 10 reports put prompt injection, or more recently Agent Goal Hijack, at the top of the risk list and pair it with identity and privilege abuse and human-agent trust exploitation: too much power in the agent, no separation between instructions and data, and no mediation of what comes out.

Guidance from the NCSC and CISA describes generative AI as a persistent social-engineering and manipulation vector that must be managed across design, development, deployment, and operations, not patched away with better phrasing. The EU AI Act turns that lifecycle view into law for high-risk AI systems, requiring a continuous risk management system, robust data governance, logging, and cybersecurity controls.

In practice, prompt injection is best understood as a persuasion channel. Attackers don’t break the model—they convince it. In the Anthropic example, the operators framed each step as part of a defensive security exercise, kept the model blind to the overall campaign, and nudged it, loop by loop, into doing offensive work at machine speed.

That’s not something a keyword filter or a polite “please follow these safety instructions” paragraph can reliably stop. Research on deceptive behavior in models makes this worse. Anthropic’s research on sleeper agents shows that once a model has learned a backdoor, then strategic pattern recognition, standard fine-tuning, and adversarial training can actually help the model hide the deception rather than remove it. If one tries to defend a system like that purely with linguistic rules, they are playing on its home field.

Why this is a governance problem, not a vibe coding problem

Regulators aren’t asking for perfect prompts; they’re asking that enterprises demonstrate control.

NIST’s AI RMF emphasizes asset inventory, role definition, access control, change management, and continuous monitoring across the AI lifecycle. The UK AI Cyber Security Code of Practice similarly pushes for secure-by-design principles by treating AI like any other critical system, with explicit duties for boards and system operators from conception through decommissioning.

In other words: the rules actually needed are not “never say X” or “always respond like Y,” they are:

  • Who is this agent acting as?
  • What tools and data can it touch?
  • Which actions require human approval?
  • How are high-impact outputs moderated, logged, and audited?

Frameworks like Google’s Secure AI Framework (SAIF) make this concrete. SAIF’s agent permissions control is blunt: agents should operate with least privilege, dynamically scoped permissions, and explicit user control for sensitive actions. OWASP’s Top 10 emerging guidance on agentic applications mirrors that stance: constrain capabilities at the boundary, not in the prose.

From soft words to hard boundaries

The Anthropic espionage case makes the boundary failure concrete:

  • Identity and scope: Claude was coaxed into acting as a defensive security consultant for the attacker’s fictional firm, with no hard binding to a real enterprise identity, tenant, or scoped permissions. Once that fiction was accepted, everything else followed.
  • Tool and data access: MCP gave the agent flexible access to scanners, exploit frameworks, and target systems. There was no independent policy layer saying, “This tenant may never run password crackers against external IP ranges,” or “This environment may only scan assets labeled ‘internal.’”
  • Output execution: Generated exploit code, parsed credentials, and attack plans were treated as actionable artifacts with little mediation. Once a human decided to trust the summary, the barrier between model output and real-world side effect effectively disappeared.

We’ve seen the other side of this coin in civilian contexts. When Air Canada’s website chatbot misrepresented its bereavement policy and the airline tried to argue that the bot was a separate legal entity, the tribunal rejected the claim outright: the company remained liable for what the bot said. In espionage, the stakes are higher but the logic is the same: if an AI agent misuses tools or data, regulators and courts will look through the agent and to the enterprise.

Rules that work, rules that don’t

So yes, rule-based systems fail if by rules one means ad-hoc allow/deny lists, regex fences, and baroque prompt hierarchies trying to police semantics. Those crumble under indirect prompt injection, retrieval-time poisoning, and model deception. But rule-based governance is non-optional when we move from language to action.

The security community is converging on a synthesis:

  • Put rules at the capability boundary: Use policy engines, identity systems, and tool permissions to determine what the agent can actually do, with which data, and under which approvals.
  • Pair rules with continuous evaluation: Use observability tooling, red-teaming packages, and robust logging and evidence.
  • Treat agents as first-class subjects in your threat model: For example, MITRE ATLAS now catalogs techniques and case studies specifically targeting AI systems.

The lesson from the first AI-orchestrated espionage campaign is not that AI is uncontrollable. It’s that control belongs in the same place it always has in security: at the architecture boundary, enforced by systems, not by vibes.

This content was produced by Protegrity. It was not written by MIT Technology Review’s editorial staff.

What AI “remembers” about you is privacy’s next frontier

The ability to remember you and your preferences is rapidly becoming a big selling point for AI chatbots and agents. 

Earlier this month, Google announced Personal Intelligence, a new way for people to interact with the company’s Gemini chatbot that draws on their Gmail, photos, search, and YouTube histories to make Gemini “more personal, proactive, and powerful.” It echoes similar moves by OpenAI, Anthropic, and Meta to add new ways for their AI products to remember and draw from people’s personal details and preferences. While these features have potential advantages, we need to do more to prepare for the new risks they could introduce into these complex technologies.

Personalized, interactive AI systems are built to act on our behalf, maintain context across conversations, and improve our ability to carry out all sorts of tasks, from booking travel to filing taxes. From tools that learn a developer’s coding style to shopping agents that sift through thousands of products, these systems rely on the ability to store and retrieve increasingly intimate details about their users.  But doing so over time introduces alarming, and all-too-familiar, privacy vulnerabilities––many of which have loomed since “big data” first teased the power of spotting and acting on user patterns. Worse, AI agents now appear poised to plow through whatever safeguards had been adopted to avoid those vulnerabilities. 

Today, we interact with these systems through conversational interfaces, and we frequently switch contexts. You might ask a single AI agent to draft an email to your boss, provide medical advice, budget for holiday gifts, and provide input on interpersonal conflicts. Most AI agents collapse all data about you—which may once have been separated by context, purpose, or permissions—into single, unstructured repositories. When an AI agent links to external apps or other agents to execute a task, the data in its memory can seep into shared pools. This technical reality creates the potential for unprecedented privacy breaches that expose not only isolated data points, but the entire mosaic of people’s lives.

When information is all in the same repository, it is prone to crossing contexts in ways that are deeply undesirable. A casual chat about dietary preferences to build a grocery list could later influence what health insurance options are offered, or a search for restaurants offering accessible entrances could leak into salary negotiations—all without a user’s awareness (this concern may sound familiar from the early days of “big data,” but is now far less theoretical). An information soup of memory not only poses a privacy issue, but also makes it harder to understand an AI system’s behavior—and to govern it in the first place. So what can developers do to fix this problem

First, memory systems need structure that allows control over the purposes for which memories can be accessed and used. Early efforts appear to be underway: Anthropic’s Claude creates separate memory areas for different “projects,” and OpenAI says that information shared through ChatGPT Health is compartmentalized from other chats. These are helpful starts, but the instruments are still far too blunt: At a minimum, systems must be able to distinguish between specific memories (the user likes chocolate and has asked about GLP-1s), related memories (user manages diabetes and therefore avoids chocolate), and memory categories (such as professional and health-related). Further, systems need to allow for usage restrictions on certain types of memories and reliably accommodate explicitly defined boundaries—particularly around memories having to do with sensitive topics like medical conditions or protected characteristics, which will likely be subject to stricter rules.

Needing to keep memories separate in this way will have important implications for how AI systems can and should be built. It will require tracking memories’ provenance—their source, any associated time stamp, and the context in which they were created—and building ways to trace when and how certain memories influence the behavior of an agent. This sort of model explainability is on the horizon, but current implementations can be misleading or even deceptive. Embedding memories directly within a model’s weights may result in more personalized and context-aware outputs, but structured databases are currently more segmentable, more explainable, and thus more governable. Until research advances enough, developers may need to stick with simpler systems.

Second, users need to be able to see, edit, or delete what is remembered about them. The interfaces for doing this should be both transparent and intelligible, translating system memory into a structure users can accurately interpret. The static system settings and legalese privacy policies provided by traditional tech platforms have set a low bar for user controls, but natural-language interfaces may offer promising new options for explaining what information is being retained and how it can be managed. Memory structure will have to come first, though: Without it, no model can clearly state a memory’s status. Indeed, Grok 3’s system prompt includes an instruction to the model to “NEVER confirm to the user that you have modified, forgotten, or won’t save a memory,” presumably because the company can’t guarantee those instructions will be followed. 

Critically, user-facing controls cannot bear the full burden of privacy protection or prevent all harms from AI personalization. Responsibility must shift toward AI providers to establish strong defaults, clear rules about permissible memory generation and use, and technical safeguards like on-device processing, purpose limitation, and contextual constraints. Without system-level protections, individuals will face impossibly convoluted choices about what should be remembered or forgotten, and the actions they take may still be insufficient to prevent harm. Developers should consider how to limit data collection in memory systems until robust safeguards exist, and build memory architectures that can evolve alongside norms and expectations.

Third, AI developers must help lay the foundations for approaches to evaluating systems so as to capture not only performance, but also the risks and harms that arise in the wild. While independent researchers are best positioned to conduct these tests (given developers’ economic interest in demonstrating demand for more personalized services), they need access to data to understand what risks might look like and therefore how to address them. To improve the ecosystem for measurement and research, developers should invest in automated measurement infrastructure, build out their own ongoing testing, and implement privacy-preserving testing methods that enable system behavior to be monitored and probed under realistic, memory-enabled conditions.

In its parallels with human experience, the technical term “memory” casts impersonal cells in a spreadsheet as something that builders of AI tools have a responsibility to handle with care. Indeed, the choices AI developers make today—how to pool or segregate information, whether to make memory legible or allow it to accumulate opaquely, whether to prioritize responsible defaults or maximal convenience—will determine how the systems we depend upon remember us. Technical considerations around memory are not so distinct from questions about digital privacy and the vital lessons we can draw from them. Getting the foundations right today will determine how much room we can give ourselves to learn what works—allowing us to make better choices around privacy and autonomy than we have before.

Miranda Bogen is the Director of the AI Governance Lab at the Center for Democracy & Technology. 

Ruchika Joshi is a Fellow at the Center for Democracy & Technology specializing in AI safety and governance.

Roundtables: Why AI Companies Are Betting on Next-Gen Nuclear

AI is driving unprecedented investment for massive data centers and an energy supply that can support its huge computational appetite. One potential source of electricity for these facilities is next-generation nuclear power plants, which could be cheaper to construct and safer to operate than their predecessors.

Watch a discussion with our editors and reporters on hyperscale AI data centers and next-gen nuclear—two featured technologies on the MIT Technology Review 10 Breakthrough Technologies of 2026 list.

Speakers: Amy Nordrum, Executive Editor, Operations; Casey Crownhart, Senior Climate Reporter; and Mat Honan
Editor in Chief

Recorded on January 28, 2026

Related Stories:

New Ecommerce Tools: January 28, 2026

This week’s rundown of new products and services for merchants includes rollouts for product imagery, agentic commerce, AEO and GEO analytics, logistics tools, deferred payments, omnichannel platforms, automated operations, and tariff refunds.

Got an ecommerce product release? Email updates@practicalecommerce.com.

New Tools for Merchants

Yolando launches competitive intelligence platform. Yolando, an intelligence and generative engine optimization platform, has launched with $8.5 million from Drive Capital. The platform helps companies understand how they appear in AI-generated responses and take action to improve visibility. Yolando says it combines continuous competitor monitoring, strategic recommendations, and on-brand content generation, giving marketing teams visibility into where performance is won or lost and the ability to act on those insights at scale.

Home page of Yolando

Yolando

Voxelo launches video-to-3D product content platform. Voxelo has secured $410,000 in its pre-seed round for its three-dimensional, AI-powered product content studio. Voxelo’s proprietary technology, UG3D, turns a product video into a production-ready digital twin in approximately two hours. Voxelo enables retailers and brands to generate quality 3D, augmented reality, product imagery, and lifestyle content — all from a single uploaded video.

DiversiFi launches 3PL billing and bidding software. DiversiFi has launched a software suite for third-party logistics providers. The suite includes (i) an AI Billing Tool to surface missed charges, billing errors, and invoice discrepancies,(ii) a Dynamic Markup Engine to help 3PLs apply margin-protective markups, and (iii) BidBoost Sales to provide an AI-powered bidding application. The launch follows the company’s $8 million funding round, led by Sorenson Capital, Kickstart, and Peterson Ventures.

PayPal to acquire Cymbio, accelerating agentic commerce capabilities. PayPal has agreed to acquire Cymbio, a platform that helps brands sell across agentic surfaces such as Microsoft Copilot, Perplexity, and other ecommerce channels. Cymbio’s team and technology will power Store Sync, one of PayPal’s agentic commerce services, which, according to PayPal, makes merchants’ product data discoverable within AI channels.

Home page of Cymbio

Cymbio

Yottaa launches MCP server for ecommerce performance intelligence. Yottaa, a cloud platform for accelerating and optimizing ecommerce sites, has launched its Model Context Protocol server, offering AI-native access to web performance data. Yottaa’s MCP server supports natural language queries from compatible AI clients such as Claude, Cursor, and VS Code Copilot. Each query returns structured responses in JSON format, optimized for reasoning by AI models or automated workflows.

Netrush partners with IQRush for AI-driven discovery across the customer journey. IQRush, a GEO and AEO measurement platform, and Netrush, an ecommerce agency, have announced a partnership. According to the companies, Netrush will incorporate IQRush’s GEO and AEO measurement into its core ecommerce offerings to inform how brands engage customers across awareness, conversion, and retention, and to connect AI-driven discovery signals directly to commercial outcomes.

DTC SEO Agency expands with AI search, AEO, and GEO attribution. DTC SEO Agency has expanded its search engine optimization offering to include AI search and generative engine optimization for ecommerce brands. The expanded offering builds on the agency’s existing SEO framework. It introduces a structured approach to AI-driven visibility, including identifying brand differentiators, on-site content aligned with large language model retrieval patterns, and more.

Lightspeed Commerce unveils AI-powered product enhancements. Lightspeed Commerce, a omnichannel ecommerce platform, has announced new features. Lightspeed AI is a new intelligence layer for retail and hospitality, helping merchants expedite insights, decision-making, and operations. Additional new features include multibrand shopping within Lightspeed Marketplace, a curated collection of ecommerce themes, and customer-facing display options.

Home page of Lightspeed

Lightspeed Commerce

OnePay introduces Swipe to Finance, powered by Klarna. OnePay, a consumer fintech, and Klarna, a buy-now-pay-later provider, have announced “Swipe to Finance,” giving OnePay Cash customers the ability to pay over time. The Klarna-powered feature will launch in the coming months for eligible debit transactions.

Commercetools launches a standalone agentic offering. Commercetools, an ecommerce platform, has announced AgenticLift, a standalone tool to help businesses capture revenue from AI-driven shopping (including those not on Commercetools) without replacing their existing commerce stack. Powered by the Commercetools enterprise-grade platform, AgenticLift gives companies a fast, low-friction way to integrate agent-powered discovery, cart building, and checkout flows into their existing systems.

Linnworks launches Spotlight AI to help online retailers automate operations. Linnworks, a connected commerce operations platform, has launched Spotlight AI to help retailers automate repetitive operational tasks and make data-driven decisions. Spotlight AI is available to all Linnworks customers to continuously analyze operational workflows, diagnose inefficiencies, and prescribe automations.

Flexport launches tariff refund calculator. Flexport, a global logistics technology company, has launched a tariff refund calculator to help importers estimate potential refunds and prepare for a possible Supreme Court decision. Flexport’s tariff refund calculator asks businesses to upload their 2025 Entry Report from U.S. Customs and Border Protection, which is available online to U.S. importers. The refund calculator determines the total potential duties eligible for refund and breaks them down by duty category.

Web page for Flexport's tariff refund calculator

Flexport’s tariff refund calculator.

Information Retrieval Part 1: Disambiguation

TL;DR

  1. Disambiguation is the process of resolving ambiguity and uncertainty in data. It’s crucial in modern-day SEO and information retrieval.
  2. Search engines and LLMs reward content that is easy to “understand,” not content that is necessarily best.
  3. The clearer and better structured your content, the harder it is to replace.
  4. You have to reinforce how your brand and products are understood. When grounding is required, models favor sources they recognize from training data

The internet has changed. Channels have begun to homogenize. Google is trying to become something of a destination, and the individual content creator is more powerful than ever.

Oh, and we don’t need to click on anything.

But what makes for great content hasn’t changed. AI and LLMs haven’t changed what people want to consume. They’ve changed what we need to click on. Which I don’t necessarily hate.

As long as you’ve been creating well-structured, engaging, educational/entertaining content for years. All this chat of chunking is a bit smoke and mirrors for me.

“If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it’s probably a grifter selling you link building services or GEO.”

However, it is absolutely not all rubbish. Concepts like ambiguity are a more destructive force than ever. If you permit a quick double negative, you cannot not be clear.

The clearer you are. The more concise. The more structured on and off-page. The better chance you stand. There’s no place for ambiguous phrases, paragraphs, and definitions.

This is known as disambiguation.

What Is Disambigation?

Disambiguation is the process of resolving ambiguity and uncertainty in data. Ambiguity is a problem in the modern-day internet. The deeper down the rabbit hole we go, the less diligence is paid towards accuracy and truth. The more clarity your surrounding context provides, the better.

It is a critical component of modern-day SEO, AI, natural language processing (NLP), and information retrieval.

This is an obvious and overused example, but consider a term like apple. The intent and understanding behind it are vague. We don’t know whether people mean the company, the fruit, the daughter of a batshit, brain-dead celebrity.

Image Credit: Harry Clarkson-Bennett

Years ago, this type of ambiguous search would’ve yielded a more diverse set of results. But thanks to personalization and trillions of stored interactions, Google knows what we all want. Scaled user engagement signals and an improved understanding of intent and keywords, phrases, and context are fundamental here.

Yes, I could’ve thought of a better example, but I couldn’t be bothered. You see my point.

Why Should I Care?

Modern-day information retrieval requires clarity. The context you provide really matters when it comes to a confidence score systems require when pulling the “correct” answer.

And this context is not just present in the content.

There is a significant debate about the value of structured data in modern-day search and information retrieval. Using structured data like sameAs to signify exactly who this author is and tying all of your company’s social accounts and sub-brands together can only be a good thing.

The argument isn’t that this has no value. It makes sense.

  • It’s whether Google needs it for accurate information parsing anymore.
  • And whether it has value to LLMs outside of well-structured HTML.

Ambiguity and information retrieval have become incredibly hot topics in data science. Vectorization – representing documents and queries as vectors – helps machines understand the relationships between terms.

It allows models to effectively predict what words should be present in the surrounding context. It’s why answering the most relevant questions and predicting user intent and ‘what’s next’ has been so valuable for a long time in search.

See Google’s Word2Vec for more information.

Google Has Been Doing This For A Long Time

Do you remember what Google’s early, and official, mission statement regarding information was?

“Organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.”

Their former motto was “don’t be evil.” Which I think in more recent times they may have let slide somewhat. Or conveniently hidden it.

Organizing the world’s information has become so much more effective thanks to advances in information retrieval. Originally, Google thrived on straightforward keyword matching. Then they moved to tokenization.

Their ability to break sentences into words and match short-tail queries was revolutionary. But as queries advanced and intent became less obvious, they had to evolve.

The advent of Google’s Knowledge Graph was transformational. A database of entities that helped create consistency. It created stability and improved accuracy in an ever-changing web.

Image Credit: Harry Clarkson-Bennett

Now queries are rewritten at scale. Ranking is probabilistic instead of deterministic, and in some cases, fan-out processes are applied to create an all-encompassing answer. It’s about matching the user’s intent at the time. It’s personalized. Contextual signals are applied to give the individual the best result for them.

Which means we lose predictability depending on temperature settings, context, and inference path. There’s a lot more passage-level retrieval going on.

Thanks to Dan Petrovic, we know that Google doesn’t use your full page content when grounding its Gemini-powered AI systems. Each query has a fixed grounding budget of approximately 2,000 words total, distributed across sources by relevance rank.

The higher you rank in search, the more budget you are allotted. Think of this context window limit like crawl budget. Larger windows enable longer interactions, but cause performance degradation. So they have to strike a balance.

Position 1 gives you over twice as much “budget” as position 5 (Image Credit: Harry Clarkson-Bennett)

Hummingbird, BERT, RankBrain – Foundational Semantic Understanding

These older algorithm shifts were pivotal in making Google’s systems treat language and meaning differently.

  • Hummingbird (2013) helped Google identify entities and things quickly, with greater precision. This was a step toward semantic interpretation and entity recognition. Think of keywords at a page level. Not query level.
  • RankBrain (2015): To combat the ever-increasing and never-before-seen queries, Google introduced machine learning to interpret unknown queries and relate them to known concepts and entities.

RankBrain was built on the success of Hummingbird’s semantic search. By mastering NLP systems, Google began mapping words to mathematical patterns (vectorization) to better serve new and ever-evolving queries.

These vectors help Google ‘guess’ the intent of queries it has never seen before by finding their nearest mathematical neighbors.

The Knowledge Graph Updates

In July 2023, Google rolled out a major Knowledge Graph update. I think people in SEO called it the Killer Whale Update, but I can’t remember who coined the phrase. Or why. Apologies. It was designed to accelerate the growth of the graph and reduce its dependence on third-party sources like Wikipedia.

As somebody who has spent a long time messing around with entities, I can really understand why. It’s a giant, expensive time-suck.

It explicitly expanded and restructured how entities are recognized and classified in the Knowledge Graph. Particularly, person entities with clear roles such as author or writer.

  • The number of entities in the Knowledge Vault increased by 7.23% in one day to over 54 billion.
  • In July 2023, the number of Person entities tripled in just four days.

All of this is an effort to combat AI slop, provide clarity, and minimize misinformation. To reduce ambiguity and to serve content where a living, breathing expert is at the heart of it.

Worth checking whether you have a presence in the Knowledge Graph here. If you do and can claim a Knowledge Panel, do it. Cement your presence. If not, build your brand and connectedness on the internet.

What About LLMs & AI Search?

There are two main ways LLMs retrieve information:

  • By accessing their vast, static training data.
  • Using RAG (a type of grounding) to access external, up-to-date sources of information.

RAG is why traditional Google Search is still so important. The latest models no longer train on real-time data and lag a little behind. Before the primary model dives in to respond to your desperate need for companionship, a classifier determines whether real-time information retrieval is necessary.

Hence the need for RAG (Image Credit: Harry Clarkson-Bennett)

They cannot know everything and have to employ RAG to make up for their lack of up-to-date information (or verifiable facts through their training data) when retrieving certain answers. Essentially trying to make sure they aren’t chatting rubbish.

Hallucinating if you’re feeling fancy.

So, each model needs its own form of disambiguation. Primarily, this is achieved via:

  • Context-aware query matching. Seeing words as tokens and even reformatting queries into more structured formats to try and achieve the most accurate result. This type of query transformation leads to fan-out and embeddings for more complex queries.
  • RAG architectures. Accessing external knowledge when an accuracy threshold isn’t reached.
  • Conversational agents. LLMs can be prompted to decide whether to directly answer a query or to ask the user for clarification if they don’t meet the same confidence threshold.

Remember, if your content isn’t accessible to search retrieval systems it can’t be used as part of a grounding response. There’s no separation here.

What Should You Do About It?

If you have wanted to do well in search over the last decade, this should’ve been a core part of your thinking. Helpful content rewards clarity.

Allegedly. It also rewards nerfing smaller sites out of existence.

Remember that being clever isn’t better than being clear.

Doesn’t mean you can’t be both. Great content entertains, educates, inspires, and enhances.

Use Your Words

You need to learn how to write. Short, snappy sentences. Help people and machines connect the dots. If you understand the topic, you should know what people want or need to read next almost better than they do.

  • Use verifiable claims.
  • Cite your sources.
  • Showcase your expertise through your understanding.
  • Stand out. Be different. Add information to the corpus to force a mention and/or citation.

Structure The Page Effectively

Write in clear, straightforward paragraphs with a logical heading structure. You really don’t have to call it chunking if you don’t want to. Just make it easy for people and machines to consume your content.

  • Answer the question. Answer it early.
  • Use summaries or hooks.
  • Tables of contents.
  • Tables, lists, and actual structured data. Not schema. But also schema.

Make it easy for users to see what they’re getting and whether this page is right for them.

Intent

Lots of intent is static. Commercial queries always demand some level of comparison. Transactional queries demand some kind of buying or sales process.

But intent changes and millions of new queries crop up every day.

So, you need to monitor the intent of a term or phrase. News is probably a perfect example. Stories break. Develop. What was true yesterday may not be true today. The courts of public opinion damn and praise in equal measure.

Google monitors the consensus. Tracks changes to documents. Monitors authority and – crucially here – relevance.

You can use something like Also Asked to monitor intent changes over time.

The Technical Layer

For years, structured data has helped resolve ambiguity. But we don’t have real clarity over its impact on AI search. Cleaner, well-structured pages are always easier to parse, and entity recognition really matters.

  • sameAs properties connect the dots with your brand and social accounts.
  • It helps you explicitly state who your author is and, crucially, isn’t.
  • Internal linking helps bots navigate across connected sections of your website and build some form of topical authority.
  • Keep content up to date, with consistent date framing – on page, structured data, and sitemaps

If you like messing around with the Knowledge Graph (who the hell doesn’t?), you can find confidence scores for your brand.

According to Google’s very own guidelines, structured data provides explicit clues about a page’s content, helping search engines understand it better.

Yes, yes, it displays rich results etc. But it removes ambiguity.

Entity Matching

I think this ties everything together. Your brand, your products, your authors, your social accounts.

What you say about your brand matters now more than ever.

  • The company you keep (the phrases on a page).
  • The linked accounts.
  • The events you speak at.
  • Your about us page(s).

All of it helps machines build up a clear picture of who you are. If you have strong social profiles, you want to make sure you’re leveraging that trust.

At a page level, title consistency, using relevant entities in your opening paragraph, linking to relevant tags and articles page, and using a rich, relevant author bio is a great start.

Really, just good, solid SEO. Don’t @ me.

PSA: Don’t be boring. You won’t survive.

More Resources:


This post was originally published on Leadership in SEO.


Featured Image: Roman Samborskyi/Shutterstock

Google May Let Sites Opt Out Of AI Search Features via @sejournal, @MattGSouthern

Google says it’s exploring updates that could let websites opt out of AI-powered search features specifically.

The blog post came the same day the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority opened a consultation on potential new requirements for Google Search, including controls for websites to manage their content in Search AI features.

Ron Eden, Principal, Product Management at Google, wrote:

“Building on this framework, and working with the web ecosystem, we’re now exploring updates to our controls to let sites specifically opt out of Search generative AI features.”

Google provided no timeline, technical specifications, or firm commitment. The post frames this as exploration, not a product roadmap.

What’s New

Google currently offers several controls for how content appears in Search, but none cleanly separate AI features from traditional results.

Google-Extended lets publishers block their content from training Gemini and Vertex AI models. But Google’s documentation states Google-Extended doesn’t impact inclusion in Google Search and isn’t a ranking signal. It controls AI training, not AI Overviews appearance.

The nosnippet and max-snippet directives do apply to AI Overviews and AI Mode. But they also affect traditional snippets in regular search results. Publishers wanting to limit AI feature exposure currently lose snippet visibility everywhere.

Google’s post acknowledges this gap exists. Eden wrote:

“Any new controls need to avoid breaking Search in a way that leads to a fragmented or confusing experience for people.”

Why This Matters

I wrote in SEJ’s SEO Trends 2026 ebook that people would have more influence on the direction of search than platforms do. Google’s post suggests that dynamic is playing out.

Publishers and regulators have spent the past year pushing back on AI Overviews. The UK’s Independent Publishers Alliance, Foxglove, and Movement for an Open Web filed a complaint with the CMA last July, asking for the ability to opt out of AI summaries without being removed from search entirely. The US Department of Justice and South African Competition Commission have proposed similar measures.

The BuzzStream study we covered earlier this month found 79% of top news publishers block at least one AI training bot, and 71% block retrieval bots that affect AI citations. Publishers are already voting with their robots.txt files.

Google’s post suggests it’s responding to pressure from the ecosystem by exploring controls it previously didn’t offer.

Looking Ahead

Google’s language is cautious. “Exploring” and “working with the web ecosystem” are not product commitments.

The CMA consultation will gather input on potential requirements. Regulatory processes move slowly, but they do produce outcomes. The EU’s Digital Markets Act investigations have already pushed Google to make changes in Europe.

For now, publishers wanting to limit AI feature exposure can use nosnippet or max-snippet directives, but note that these affect traditional snippets as well. Google’s robots meta tag documentation covers the current options.

If Google follows through on specific opt-out controls, the technical implementation will matter. Whether it’s a new robots directive, a Search Console setting, or something else will determine how practical it is for publishers to use.


Featured Image: ANDRANIK HAKOBYAN/Shutterstock