5 ms·

Thanks for this, it's crazy that I had to scroll so far to see it on this site. The headline sounds sensational, then if you actually read the article you real

Thanks for this, it's crazy that I had to scroll so far to see it on this site. The headline sounds sensational, then if you actually read the article you realize the author just made up his own framing entirely, or he just discovered that AEO and GEO exists and thinks it's sinister? I thought maybe there were going to be some markers about how they're targeting LLMs specifically there was nothing like that. And if you go to https://hanoverinstitute.com/llms.txt https://hanoverinstitute.com/llms.txt ...honestly, you could maybe form a critique about implying to LLMs that your wagon is hitched to the Department of Justice on line 5! But this guy didn't even seem to find this file...

giov4 2mo ago
comparing and mentioned SEO or other stuff here is clearly a tentative of misinformation and confusion of readers. the claim "the author just made up his own framing entirely" is clearly an unbased accusation. The article clearly explain the information poisoning, fast paced publication and ties to government, nothing else. this comment should be flagged as is misleading users off topic. stop polluting this thread in an organized and selfish self supporting way. so typical
- Brendinooo 2mo ago
  >a tentative of misinformation What does this mean? > is clearly an unbased accusation. "Israel creates fake think tank" is the headline. What is a "think tank"? What distinguishes a real one from a fake one? Does "the Hanover Institute" claim to be a think tank? The author does not answer any of these questions, only saying "At a glance, the Hanover Institute for Public Policy looks like a new think tank dedicated to Israel/Palestine": in other words, he glanced at it, decided it looked like a think tank, then decided it wasn't a "real" one, and then went from there. That is very much the author's framing instead of something grounded in objectivity. >The article clearly explain the information poisoning The article says "Others refer to this practice of influencing artificial intelligence as 'LLM poisoning.'" But the Anthropic paper that it cites to support this claim never discusses persuasive content, propaganda, or credibility-mimicking material at all; it uses "poisoning" for a technically distinct attack class. So the citation doesn't support the claim as written. >stop polluting this thread in an organized and selfish self supporting way. so typical What do you mean by this? How am I organized? Why is it selfish to criticize an article?
  - giov4 2mo ago
    putting random questions and confused informations that make no sense is only a tentative of distorting the conversation further and going off topic.
    - Brendinooo 2mo ago
      >putting random questions everything I posted was in response to you; nothing is random. >confused informations Just saying they're confused is meaningless; if you think I am wrong about something, feel free to give actual rebuttals. >tentative This word is defined as "not certain or fixed; provisional" or "done without confidence; hesitant". It is an adjective, not a noun. I genuinely do know know what you mean when you use this word.
      - giov4 2mo ago
        please stop trolling and provoking. a statement like this is clearly on purpose: >a tentative of misinformation >>What does this mean? claiming not knowing what tentative means in english is clearly on purpose and could anyway be translated if it was a language problem. again here: >tentative >>This word is defined as "not certain or fixed; provisional" or "done without confidence; hesitant". It is an adjective, not a noun. I genuinely do know know what you mean when you use this word. Everybody knows what a tentative is and also looking it up and reporting a single possible translation of its meaning is just ridiculous. again stop dragging the conversation off topic and stop on purpose provoking. the repeated statements clearly confirms your negative intention and your previous content does not add any value. for the sake of clarity to the readers I will report here the points more clearly again: - mentioning SEO,AEO or other stuff here is clearly a tentative of misinformation and confusion of readers. moving the attention to an off topic relationship. - the claim "the author just made up his own framing entirely" is clearly an accusation without any reasoning or logic backing it up - The article clearly explain the information poisoning, fast paced publication and ties to government, nothing else. and thats the main point and target. I will not waste more time on replying to purposely fabricated statements or questions.

giov4 2mo ago

comparing and mentioned SEO or other stuff here is clearly a tentative of misinformation and confusion of readers. the claim "the author just made up his own framing entirely" is clearly an unbased accusation. The article clearly explain the information poisoning, fast paced publication and ties to government, nothing else. this comment should be flagged as is misleading users off topic. stop polluting this thread in an organized and selfish self supporting way. so typical

Brendinooo 2mo ago
>a tentative of misinformation What does this mean? > is clearly an unbased accusation. "Israel creates fake think tank" is the headline. What is a "think tank"? What distinguishes a real one from a fake one? Does "the Hanover Institute" claim to be a think tank? The author does not answer any of these questions, only saying "At a glance, the Hanover Institute for Public Policy looks like a new think tank dedicated to Israel/Palestine": in other words, he glanced at it, decided it looked like a think tank, then decided it wasn't a "real" one, and then went from there. That is very much the author's framing instead of something grounded in objectivity. >The article clearly explain the information poisoning The article says "Others refer to this practice of influencing artificial intelligence as 'LLM poisoning.'" But the Anthropic paper that it cites to support this claim never discusses persuasive content, propaganda, or credibility-mimicking material at all; it uses "poisoning" for a technically distinct attack class. So the citation doesn't support the claim as written. >stop polluting this thread in an organized and selfish self supporting way. so typical What do you mean by this? How am I organized? Why is it selfish to criticize an article?
- giov4 2mo ago
  putting random questions and confused informations that make no sense is only a tentative of distorting the conversation further and going off topic.
  - Brendinooo 2mo ago
    >putting random questions everything I posted was in response to you; nothing is random. >confused informations Just saying they're confused is meaningless; if you think I am wrong about something, feel free to give actual rebuttals. >tentative This word is defined as "not certain or fixed; provisional" or "done without confidence; hesitant". It is an adjective, not a noun. I genuinely do know know what you mean when you use this word.
    - giov4 2mo ago
      please stop trolling and provoking. a statement like this is clearly on purpose: >a tentative of misinformation >>What does this mean? claiming not knowing what tentative means in english is clearly on purpose and could anyway be translated if it was a language problem. again here: >tentative >>This word is defined as "not certain or fixed; provisional" or "done without confidence; hesitant". It is an adjective, not a noun. I genuinely do know know what you mean when you use this word. Everybody knows what a tentative is and also looking it up and reporting a single possible translation of its meaning is just ridiculous. again stop dragging the conversation off topic and stop on purpose provoking. the repeated statements clearly confirms your negative intention and your previous content does not add any value. for the sake of clarity to the readers I will report here the points more clearly again: - mentioning SEO,AEO or other stuff here is clearly a tentative of misinformation and confusion of readers. moving the attention to an off topic relationship. - the claim "the author just made up his own framing entirely" is clearly an accusation without any reasoning or logic backing it up - The article clearly explain the information poisoning, fast paced publication and ties to government, nothing else. and thats the main point and target. I will not waste more time on replying to purposely fabricated statements or questions.