Linux, Python, vim, git & nix LPvgn Short Stack
Future-proof your skills and escape the tech hamster wheel with Linux, Python, vim & git — now with nix (LPvgn), an AI stack to resist obsolescence. Follow along as I build next generation AI/SEO tools for porting Jupyter Notebooks to FastHTML / HTMX Web apps using the Pipulate free AI SEO software.

Learning AI Deep Research

In this exploration, I delved into the evolving landscape of AI-driven deep research, starting with a Google Trends analysis of ‘SEO’ versus the celebrity ‘Yuk Jun-seo’ to illustrate AI’s analytical prowess. Then, I shifted focus to compare the deep research capabilities of leading AI models like ChatGPT, Bing Chat, Claude, Gemini, Perplexity, and Grok. I examined their web browsing styles, citation practices, output formatting, code interaction, and future potentials, highlighting the nuances that differentiate each platform. The goal was to provide a comprehensive overview of how these tools are transforming online research, emphasizing the growing importance of real-time data and transparent source attribution.

The Rise of AI Tools as Digital Employees

Deep research–or the ability for AI to actively investigate a topic using live web data and tool-assisted analysis–is emerging across several AI systems. These tools go beyond static knowledge, employing real-time web browsing (often performing multi-hop “small-world” style crawls across links (Peak Data? Why the Future of Search Hinges on Outlier Information | Mike Levin on Linux, Python, vim & git (LPvg))) and providing users with source-backed answers. Below we compare key players—OpenAI’s ChatGPT, Microsoft’s Bing Chat, Anthropic’s Claude, Google’s Gemini (Bard), Perplexity AI, and xAI’s Grok—focusing on their web browsing abilities, citation transparency, output format, coding/API tools, and forward-looking features.

In a world where tools are gradually turning into employees, they’re going to be able to do any Internet information-based work faster than you. Whether or not AI can do research “better than you” is a yet to be determined, but the idea that their quality right now is the worst they’re ever going to be comes to mind. Humans, even reaching the peak of their skills and their game are still going to… well, peak, and then eventually decline (but not if I can help it 😉).

The Inevitable Growth Curve of AI Capabilities

But the performance of AIs on the other hand is just going to follow a steady hockey-stick shaped curve up, getting forever better and faster. First, they’re going to gain extreme mastery over the web browser, giving them their initial robot bodies. Who needs a clumsy body made of levers and pulleys when a svelte app body gives you instant worldwide access to everything?

You don’t even need the Nvidia Omniverse to practice your moves. You just practice them on the Internet proper! That’s what’s going on with the new wave of Deep Research features popping up in the frontier LLM AI ChatBot models, and now in the agentic frameworks like Manus. Once learnings can really wrap back in without a big multi-million dollar retraining process on the core models, the process accelerates (as if it didn’t feel overwhelmingly fast already).

Rethinking at Machine Speed

Almost all processes and systems are becoming re-thought through because the AIs do the re-thinking relentlessly, tirelessly, and at breakneck speed. You can see traces of this when you hear Jensen Huang say that the NVidia IC designs are being optimized during the night when the engineers go home to sleep. He further says that today’s designs simply couldn’t be done without AI. Now that’s coming from the company that designs the chips that enable it. They’re feeling the strange feedback loop first.

But it trickles down to all of us from here. And Deep Research is one of the first places it is being felt. AIs can google Google better than you. They can search, research and re-research a zillion times faster. And I don’t mean that metaphorically. They literally can.

Just to give a tiny example, I went into Google Trends to just poke around and look at what’s going on in the world, search-trend wise. It’s always interesting to go into Google Trends with just an open exploratory mind and re-sync-up with the zeitgeist of the world. There’s a whole article on just this, given that Google Trends only gives trend lines and relative search volumes and not absolute numbers, so much of the value is in comparing term A to term B.

And in doing so, I discovered a recent pop in the popularity of the term SEO itself, which may be because of the rise of the popularity of AI, and the rethinking of websites in general. Or it could be because of the surname of a South Korean celebrity. They definitely coincide. But how much is the result of one versus the other? Tedious! Oh wait, let me try the “Deep Research” features. Let’s start with ChatGPT 4.5:

Deep Research on Rise of SEO Popularity (ChatGPT 4.5)

I noticed a rise in the popularity of SEO in Google Trends and it seems to correlate to the rise of a South Korean celebrity. Is the spike wholly due to him, or is AI to blame as well?

Me: Is the recent rise in popularity of SEO as a search term as represented in Google Trends the result of a rise in the concept of search engine optimization or the South Korean celebrity Yuk Jun-Seo?

ChatGPT 4.5 Research: Are you interested in analyzing the trend globally or within a specific region? Additionally, would you like insights on search volume correlations between ‘SEO’ and ‘Yuk Jun-Seo’ over time?

Me: Globally. Yes. And report on any other interesting related trends you find, particularly to validate SEO as in search engine optimization rising as a trend, despite the pop it may be getting from celebrities with the same acronym name.0

ChatGPT 4.5 Research: I’ll analyze global Google Trends data for ‘SEO’ and ‘Yuk Jun-Seo’ to determine whether the recent rise in ‘SEO’ as a search term is driven by increased interest in search engine optimization or the South Korean celebrity. I’ll also look for correlations and any other relevant trends to validate SEO’s rise as an industry trend. I’ll share my findings once the analysis is complete.

Introduction
The term “SEO” can refer to search engine optimization or, more recently, could surface in searches related to South Korean celebrity Yuk Jun-seo (a contestant on Netflix’s Single’s Inferno 4). A noticeable rise in Google searches for “SEO” has raised the question: Is this spike driven by increased interest in SEO as a digital marketing practice, or by Yuk Jun-seo’s surge in popularity? In this report, we analyze global Google Trends data for “SEO” and “Yuk Jun-seo”, comparing their relative search volumes over time and looking for correlations. We also examine related search trends that support the growing prominence of SEO as an industry, while accounting for any distortions from the celebrity’s influence.

Search Interest in “SEO” Over Time

Google Trends shows that search interest in “SEO” has been on a long-term upward trajectory, reaching record levels in recent years. In the United States (a major market that reflects global patterns), interest in “SEO” grew steadily through the 2000s, dipped slightly in the mid-2010s, then surged to all-time highs by late 2019–2020 and again in 2024–2025 ({weekly discussion} Search for SEO on Google trends at an all time high : r/SEO). This indicates that worldwide, searches for SEO (as a topic) are higher than ever:

({weekly discussion} Search for SEO on Google trends at an all time high : r/SEO) Interest over time for “SEO” (search engine optimization) in the United States, 2004–present. The trend shows a gradual rise, with peaks around 2020 and a renewed high by early 2025 ({weekly discussion} Search for SEO on Google trends at an all time high : r/SEO). Global interest follows a similar pattern of sustained growth.

Several factors underpin this growth in “SEO” search popularity: the expansion of digital marketing, more businesses seeking online visibility, and heightened public interest in how search algorithms work. Notably, the COVID-19 pandemic drove many businesses online, causing a spike in interest around 2020 (visible in the graph) as companies scrambled to improve their online presence (Why Contractors Need SEO Now More Than Ever | Hook Agency). After a brief correction, interest continued climbing. By early 2025, “SEO” search interest was at or near its highest point since tracking began, suggesting a robust and growing interest in search engine optimization worldwide ({weekly discussion} Search for SEO on Google trends at an all time high : r/SEO).

Yuk Jun-seo’s Emergence and Search Spike

Yuk Jun-seo is a South Korean visual artist and reality TV personality who became widely known through the dating show Single’s Inferno 4, released on Netflix in mid-January 2025 (Who Is Yuk Jun-seo From ‘Single’s Inferno’ Season 4? | Marie Claire). Prior to this, global search interest in his name was negligible. However, with the show’s premiere on January 14, 2025, Yuk Jun-seo quickly became a trending topic. His casting had “fans buzzing” even before the show aired (Who Is Yuk Jun-seo From ‘Single’s Inferno’ Season 4? | Marie Claire), and he drew further attention due to dramatic moments on the show (such as a controversial “bed scene” in episode 7 (Single’s Inferno 4’s Yuk Jun Seo faces backlash for ‘bed scene’ with Lee Si An in episode 7; viewers criticize excessive skinship | PINKVILLA: Korean) (Single’s Inferno 4’s Yuk Jun Seo faces backlash for ‘bed scene’ with Lee Si An in episode 7; viewers criticize excessive skinship | PINKVILLA: Korean)). As a result, searches for “Yuk Jun-seo” spiked sharply in January 2025, reflecting his burst of international popularity.

It’s important to note that people searching for Yuk Jun-seo typically use his full name (or related terms like “Single’s Inferno Jun-seo”), not just “Seo.” In Korean, his name is written as 육준서, and international fans tend to romanize it fully. Therefore, any influence Yuk Jun-seo has on the standalone term “SEO” in search data would be indirect. For example, news articles and social media posts about him might include the name “Yuk Jun-seo”, which contains the substring “Seo,” but Google Trends treats “SEO” (the acronym) as a distinct search term.

Comparing “SEO” vs. “Yuk Jun-seo” Search Volumes

To determine whether the recent rise in “SEO” queries is due to SEO-the-practice or the celebrity Yuk Jun-seo, we compare their relative search volumes on Google Trends:

  • Overall Volume: “SEO” far outweighs “Yuk Jun-seo” in total search volume globally. Even during Yuk Jun-seo’s peak popularity in Jan–Feb 2025, searches for “SEO” (search engine optimization) were significantly higher than searches for “Yuk Jun-seo.” In Google Trends data, the interest level for “Yuk Jun-seo” at its peak was only a fraction of the interest level for “SEO” during the same period. This indicates that the term “SEO” was dominated by people looking up search engine optimization, not just the celebrity.

  • Timeline Correlation: When plotting the two terms over time, Yuk Jun-seo’s curve shows a sharp spike in mid-January 2025, whereas “SEO” shows a more gradual rise through late 2024 into 2025. There is a small bump in the “SEO” trend line around the same time Yuk Jun-seo was trending, but it is not a dramatic spike; rather, it sits on an already rising trend. This suggests minimal direct correlation: the celebrity’s surge may have contributed a minor, short-lived uptick in “SEO” searches, but the overall upward trend for “SEO” predates and postdates Yuk’s moment in the spotlight.

  • Geographical Patterns: If Yuk Jun-seo were significantly driving “SEO” searches, we would expect spikes in countries where Single’s Inferno 4 was popular (e.g. South Korea, and countries with large K-drama audiences) to coincide with “SEO” interest. However, Google Trends’ regional data for “SEO” did not show an unusual skew toward South Korea during that time; instead, top regions for “SEO” queries remained those with high internet marketing activity (such as India, the United States, etc.). In South Korea, users searching for the celebrity likely used his full name or the show’s title (often in Korean), so there wasn’t a significant bleed-over to the generic term “SEO.”

In summary: The recent rise in “SEO” as a search term is largely due to genuine interest in search engine optimization, not the celebrity. Yuk Jun-seo’s popularity caused a spike in searches for his name (Single’s Inferno 4’s Yuk Jun Seo faces backlash for ‘bed scene’ with Lee Si An in episode 7; viewers criticize excessive skinship | PINKVILLA: Korean), but this had limited impact on the standalone term “SEO.” The data shows that “SEO” maintained high query volumes even outside the timeframe of Yuk Jun-seo’s TV appearances, confirming that the broader trend is driven by the digital marketing context.

Evidence of SEO’s Growing Prominence (Independent of the Celebrity)

To further validate that “SEO” is trending due to industry interest, we can look at related search trends and industry indicators:

  • Related Search Queries: The rise in “SEO” searches has been accompanied by increased searches for related terms and services. For example, search interest for “SEO agency” hit an all-time high in early 2025 (if SEO is dead, why is search interest for “SEO agency” at its all-time …), suggesting that more businesses are actively seeking professional SEO services. Other queries like “SEO course,” “SEO tutorial,” and “technical SEO” have also seen upward trends (as evidenced anecdotally by SEO educators reporting higher demand). These related queries point to a growing public investment in learning and implementing SEO, rather than a pop culture phenomenon.

  • Consistently Trending SEO Topics: Nowhere in Google’s “related topics” for the query “SEO” does Yuk Jun-seo appear – instead, we see topics like content marketing, Google algorithm updates, keyword research, etc., which are clearly about search optimization. This indicates that the search intent behind “SEO” remains focused on web search engine optimization. The celebrity’s influence, if any, is too small to register among the top related search intents for the term.

  • Industry Growth Statistics: Outside of Google Trends, real-world data underscores SEO’s rising prominence. The global SEO industry is expanding rapidly – valued at $82+ billion in 2023 and projected to reach ~$130+ billion by 2030 (130 SEO Statistics Every Marketer Must Know in 2025) – and nearly half of SEO professionals expected their budgets to increase in 2024 (83 SEO Statistics for 2025 (Current & Verified ) - AIOSEO). This growth in the SEO industry correlates with more interest from businesses and individuals, which in turn drives more “SEO” searches on Google. In short, SEO as an industry practice is becoming more mainstream, reflected in both market growth and search interest.

  • Continuous Engagement vs. One-Time Spike: SEO interest tends to be continuous and ever-evolving (people search for SEO tips year-round), whereas Yuk Jun-seo’s search popularity spiked and then likely tapered off after the show’s finale. Indeed, Single’s Inferno 4 aired in Jan–Feb 2025; beyond that, searches for Yuk Jun-seo should diminish until he appears in the news again. But searches for “SEO” have stayed high into March 2025 and show a sustained level, which reinforces that the term’s prominence isn’t solely event-driven.

Conclusion

Google Trends data indicates that the recent rise in searches for “SEO” is driven predominantly by interest in search engine optimization – not by confusion with Yuk Jun-seo. While Yuk Jun-seo’s appearance on a popular Netflix show did cause a surge in searches for his name in early 2025, this had only a minor and short-lived influence on the generic term “SEO.” The overall volume and sustained growth of “SEO” queries far exceed what could be explained by the celebrity factor alone.

Furthermore, supporting trends – such as record-high searches for SEO services (if SEO is dead, why is search interest for “SEO agency” at its all-time …) and the general growth of the SEO industry – confirm that SEO’s increasing prominence is real and lasting. In practical terms, more people worldwide are concerned with improving search rankings and understanding Google’s algorithms, which is why “SEO” is trending upward. The spike from Yuk Jun-seo’s fame was a blip in comparison.

Key Takeaways:

In conclusion, the recent surge in “SEO” searches is authentic to the domain of search engine optimization. While Yuk Jun-seo’s popularity briefly intersected with the acronym, the data clearly shows that the world’s collective curiosity is centered on improving Google rankings rather than Netflix reality show contestants. SEO’s rise is real, and it looks poised to continue, driven by the needs of businesses and internet users in the ever-competitive search landscape.

Sources: Google Trends data ({weekly discussion} Search for SEO on Google trends at an all time high : r/SEO); News reports on Yuk Jun-seo (Who Is Yuk Jun-seo From ‘Single’s Inferno’ Season 4? | Marie Claire) (Single’s Inferno 4’s Yuk Jun Seo faces backlash for ‘bed scene’ with Lee Si An in episode 7; viewers criticize excessive skinship | PINKVILLA: Korean); Threads social media post (if SEO is dead, why is search interest for “SEO agency” at its all-time …); Industry analysis from ExplodingTopics (130 SEO Statistics Every Marketer Must Know in 2025), etc.

Apparently SEO Isn’t Dead After All

SEO is dead. Long live SEO! That seems to be the recurring theme in the industry, but the recent spike in the interest in SEO during the rise of AI means it’s just evolving, just like it did during Mobile.

Exploring Deep Research Across AI Platforms

Origins of Citations and Sources in AI Research

Fascinating! I am tempted to do this deep research test over at the other AIs, but I actually want to go a bit more meta just to lay some more foundational principles of career adjustment moving forward. Specifically, who the players are in this Deep Research space. Also, the concept of citations and sources comes to mind, as the research is conducted, something very akin to the footnotes is regularly being produced. I first noticed this in Bing, way back when Microsoft first added ChatGPT to Bing in the “Copy Text” feature that lets you copy the prompt result, typically as markdown. Ever since, Perplexity and the others have jumped on the bandwagon.

Formulating the Research Question

So my prompt is to check as much together as I reasonably can that is cross-related, or tangentially similar. Only a finite amount of resources is going to be dedicated to the deep research, currently it appears about 6 minutes in ChatGPT Pro, so we want to keep the questions fairly tight.

Comparing Deep Research Features Across AI Models

What search engines currency have a Deep Research (or similar) feature. Consider amongst your candidates yourself (OpenAI ChatGPT), Anthropic Claude, Google Gemini, Perplexity, xAI Grok and any other that come up in your research. I am mostly interested in those that can surf the web and potentially execute code and use APIs in the course of their research, able to do much of what a human could do when researching a topic online. Additionally, I am interested in the resulting formats they give you (e.g. markdown, docs, etc.) and in particular, how they give cite sources and what the language is around them (citations, sources, footnotes?).

For those actually reading this and wondering at this point what my prompt was, I actually fed in the entire article up to this point. Those big token context windows mean you can do that.

ChatGPT 4.5 Research: Great scope! To refine the research, could you clarify the following details:

  1. Which features matter most to you? Are you primarily focused on AI search engines that:
    • Browse the web live (real-time research)?
    • Execute code or interact with APIs?
    • Generate structured research reports (e.g., with citations, footnotes)?

  2. What depth of comparison do you want? Should I provide a high-level comparison (short descriptions of each AI) or a deep-dive analysis with side-by-side feature comparisons, user experience notes, and output formats?

  3. Time Sensitivity: Are you more interested in currently available features (as of March 2025), or should I also include upcoming or experimental capabilities that may be rolling out soon?

This will help ensure a focused and useful comparison!

Me:

  1. Browsing the web is my top priority. Especially the ability to follow links. I am interested in the first tools that can perform “small world theory” searches, where they can follow threads (links) and perform small real-time searches that don’t require Google’s crawl-and-index model or the Microsoft search API. However, how they correlate, cite sources and report is also of great interest, perhaps second priority. Executing code and interacting with code is third priority.

  2. I defer to you based on what you find. I presume depth would be at the expense of breadth given the finite resources you must apply. And these features of each product are going to be dynamic, so favor getting the gist and nuance of each rather than trying to pigeon hole their features into a chart.

  3. I don’t know. Maybe what’s really out, but with a tiny amount of resources and space allowed for forward-looking stuff.

ChatGPT 4.5 Deep Researches Deep Research

ChatGPT 4.5 Research: I’ll investigate AI search engines that offer deep research capabilities, prioritizing their ability to browse the web in real time, follow links dynamically, and perform small-world theory searches rather than relying solely on pre-indexed data. I’ll also analyze how they cite sources, report findings, and format outputs. Additionally, I’ll touch on their ability to execute code or interact with APIs, but with a lower priority. The research will focus on currently available features with a small section on forward-looking developments. I’ll summarize findings to capture nuances without rigidly categorizing them. I’ll update you once I have the results.

It is fascinating to watch the chain of thought process which I am tempted to include here, the parts that the APIs put between <think> tags, but I don’t because of the formatting nightmare. But this is the first time where I see myself cited!

AI Search Engines for Deep Research: A Comparative Overview

Deep research–or the ability for AI to actively investigate a topic using live web data and tool-assisted analysis–is emerging across several AI systems. These tools go beyond static knowledge, employing real-time web browsing (often performing multi-hop “small-world” style crawls across links (Peak Data? Why the Future of Search Hinges on Outlier Information | Mike Levin on Linux, Python, vim & git (LPvg))) and providing users with source-backed answers. Below we compare key players—OpenAI’s ChatGPT, Microsoft’s Bing Chat, Anthropic’s Claude, Google’s Gemini (Bard), Perplexity AI, and xAI’s Grok—focusing on their web browsing abilities, citation transparency, output format, coding/API tools, and forward-looking features.

OpenAI ChatGPT (with Deep Research Features)

ChatGPT’s base model has a knowledge cutoff, but OpenAI has added ChatGPT Search and plugins to enable real-time research. Real-Time Browsing: When browsing is enabled, ChatGPT can issue search queries and follow links to retrieve content (via Bing’s search API) rather than relying solely on its training data (ChatGPT plugins | OpenAI). It essentially conducts a mini research session: performing multiple searches and clicking through pages as needed to gather information (an LLM-driven “small world” crawl). Citation Transparency: The new browsing mode is designed with transparency in mind—ChatGPT’s answers include footnote-style citations linking to the websites it visited (ChatGPT plugins | OpenAI). This lets users verify facts and see the origin of information (notably, by default ChatGPT does not cite sources when it isn’t using the web, making the browsing feature a game-changer for trust (Microsoft Bing Chat - Review 2023 - PCMag Middle East)). Output Formatting: ChatGPT’s responses are conversational but highly flexible. It can produce answers in Markdown, create tables or bullet lists, write code blocks, etc., based on instructions. When using the browsing/search tool, answers typically include brief quoted snippets with superscript numbers pointing to references, and a list of sources or embedded links for verification (Introducing ChatGPT search | OpenAI). This formatting turns ChatGPT into a research report writer of sorts, blending natural language answers with direct source links (Introducing ChatGPT search | OpenAI). Code Execution & API Use: A standout feature is ChatGPT’s Code Interpreter (now called Advanced Data Analysis), which gives the AI a sandboxed Python environment (ChatGPT plugins | OpenAI). ChatGPT can write and execute code to analyze data, plot charts, or transform files, then present the results within the conversation. This means for deep research it can not only fetch information but also perform calculations or data analysis on-the-fly (ChatGPT plugins | OpenAI). It can also use third-party plugins for tasks like querying databases or APIs, extending its research capabilities beyond just text. Forward-Looking: OpenAI continues to evolve ChatGPT with more tool integrations and multimodal capabilities. For example, GPT-4 can now analyze images and will likely integrate that into research (e.g. reading charts or diagrams). The ChatGPT plugin ecosystem is expanding, which suggests future versions might seamlessly combine web browsing, code execution, and other APIs to provide even more comprehensive, up-to-date research assistance.

Bing Chat is Microsoft’s GPT-4-powered search assistant, and it was one of the first to offer built-in web browsing by default. Real-Time Browsing: It has direct access to Bing’s live index, meaning every user query triggers web searches for the latest information. Bing Chat can fetch content from multiple web pages in real time and synthesize it. While it doesn’t show a step-by-step crawl, it effectively performs a multi-source lookup behind the scenes for each question. Citation and Sources: Bing Chat is known for its consistent source citations – a defining feature. Every factual statement in its answer is typically annotated with a footnote number linking to the source website (Microsoft Bing Chat - Review 2023 - PCMag Middle East). These references appear inline (usually after each sentence or fact) and are collected as clickable footnotes, making it very transparent about where information is coming from. In fact, PC Magazine found that Bing provided “the best citations of any chatbot” tested, which greatly boosts trustworthiness (Microsoft Bing Chat - Review 2023 - PCMag Middle East) (Microsoft Bing Chat - Review 2023 - PCMag Middle East). Users can click the footnotes to verify info or continue reading on the source site, mirroring academic-style referencing. Output Formatting: Bing’s answers are usually presented as a concise paragraph or a set of bullet points with the aforementioned footnotes. It tends to keep responses relatively brief and to-the-point (often ~100 words) (Microsoft Bing Chat - Review 2023 - PCMag Middle East), focusing on answering the query directly. The interface might also show related queries or traditional links below the AI answer. Bing Chat supports Markdown formatting for code and lists, and it can also generate images upon request (using DALL-E 3, integrated in late 2023 (Microsoft Bing Chat - Review 2023 - PCMag Middle East)). Code & Tools: Bing Chat can write code in responses (leveraging GPT-4’s programming knowledge), and with its GPT-4 reasoning it can handle complex questions, but it does not execute code in the chat. Microsoft has, however, integrated Bing Chat with other tools (for example, there’s a mode that uses Wolfram Alpha for math and plotting). So while Bing itself won’t run arbitrary code, it can tap external services for computation. Forward-Looking: Bing Chat is continually updated in tandem with OpenAI’s improvements to GPT-4 (Confirmed: the new Bing runs on OpenAI’s GPT-4 | Bing Search Blog). Microsoft is also embedding Bing Chat across its products (Windows Copilot, Office, mobile apps), which means its deep research capabilities (web access + citations) may become ubiquitous. We can expect longer context and more advanced reasoning as GPT-4 evolves, and possibly more interactive features (e.g. retrieving PDFs or multimedia content and summarizing them). Overall, Bing’s approach firmly marries an LLM with a search engine, setting a high bar for real-time info with source attribution.

Anthropic Claude

Claude, developed by Anthropic, takes a slightly different approach focused on context and safety, with web browsing just starting to enter the picture. Real-Time Browsing: Until recently, Claude did not have built-in internet access – it was limited to its training data (and any user-provided text). However, Anthropic has signaled that adding real-time web search to Claude is a high priority (Anthropic’s Claude AI to Battle Google with New Web Search Feature | AI News). Early developments have been spotted (and third-party apps have jury-rigged Claude to do web searches), but as of now Claude’s official interface doesn’t let it freely browse the internet. Instead, Claude shines in processing user-supplied documents: its enormous 100k token context window allows feeding in long texts (hundreds of pages) for analysis (Introducing 100K Context Windows \ Anthropic). This is a form of deep research in its own right – Claude can digest and cross-reference huge volumes of text in one go, finding connections without needing to search the web (Introducing 100K Context Windows \ Anthropic). Citation and Sources: Out-of-the-box, Claude doesn’t automatically cite sources because it usually isn’t retrieving new documents by itself. It will transparently discuss information you provide (for example, cite sections of an uploaded paper), but it won’t spontaneously add footnotes unless asked. To improve trust, Anthropic recently introduced a Citations feature in their API: when developers provide Claude with source documents, it can now quote them with inline references and generate answers that pinpoint which source material supports each claim (Introducing Citations on the Anthropic API \ Anthropic) (Introducing Citations on the Anthropic API \ Anthropic). In other words, Claude can act like an academic assistant if you give it a library of documents – it will produce answers with detailed references to those texts. This is great for enterprise use (e.g. asking Claude questions about company policy PDFs and getting cited answers). If and when Claude gains direct web access, we can expect it to incorporate similar citation functionality for web sources. Output Formatting: Claude’s style is very much a conversational AI that can be instructed to format answers in various ways (it’s quite steerable). It will follow the user’s request for structure: it can write an essay, a bulleted summary, a JSON output, etc. In the context of deep research, Claude might, for example, produce a well-organized report analyzing a long document, complete with section headings or bullet points summarizing key findings. The tone is generally neutral and explanatory. There’s no dedicated UI element for sources in Claude’s own chat yet (since it doesn’t fetch web info by itself), so any source listing would be manually formatted or provided via the new citation API when used programmatically. Code Execution & Tools: Claude can generate code (and is quite good at reasoning through coding problems or math), but it does not have a built-in execution sandbox. Unlike ChatGPT’s plugin system, Claude doesn’t natively plug into external tools on the consumer level. However, Anthropic’s API does support function calling, so developers could connect Claude to search or other APIs. In fact, services like Perplexity.ai use Claude behind the scenes for answer generation (Perplexity delivers factual and relevant answers with Claude), effectively giving Claude an internet connection via an external search API. Still, end-users of Claude AI (through the Claude.ai web interface) currently rely on giving it text and questions, rather than having Claude fetch new info on its own. Forward-Looking: Anthropic is rapidly improving Claude – the context window increase to 100k tokens is one example of pushing boundaries (Introducing 100K Context Windows \ Anthropic). We anticipate that official web browsing/search functionality will roll out, leveling Claude with competitors on up-to-date knowledge (Anthropic’s Claude AI to Battle Google with New Web Search Feature | AI News) (Anthropic’s Claude AI to Battle Google with New Web Search Feature | AI News). They will likely emphasize Claude’s hallmark of “harmlessness” and reliability when doing so, perhaps curating which sources it trusts. Additionally, Anthropic’s focus on model “steerability” (via its Constitutional AI approach) means future Claude versions might let users toggle how much detail, what style of citations, or what reasoning chain it shows for deep research tasks.

Google Gemini (Bard)

Gemini is Google’s next-generation foundation model, now powering Google Bard and other services. It’s designed to deeply integrate with Google’s real-time information ecosystem. Real-Time Web Browsing: Google has equipped Bard (and by extension Gemini) with the ability to search the web on demand. This means Gemini can pull in live information from Google Search whenever a query requires up-to-date data – from news and current events to the latest figures. Google’s advantage is its massive index: Gemini’s “Deep Research” feature can purportedly analyze hundreds of sources in real time to synthesize an answer (Gemini Advanced - get access to Google’s most capable AI models with Gemini 2.0) (Gemini Advanced - get access to Google’s most capable AI models with Gemini 2.0). In practice, this might mean if you ask for an in-depth report on, say, electric vehicle market trends, Gemini will fetch content from many relevant webpages (news sites, reports, statistics) and merge them into a coherent summary. This goes beyond a single search query; it’s more like it leverages the breadth of Google’s crawl to ensure no relevant piece of info is missed. Citation and Source Handling: Google has been experimenting with how Bard/Gemini cites sources. Initially, Bard was criticized for lacking transparency (or even making up citations). Recent updates improved this: for many answers, Bard now lists a handful of sources or references at the end of its response, especially if it directly quotes or uses distinct information. In fact, Gemini’s coding assistance will cite sources for code if it uses open-source code snippets, acknowledging the origin (How Gemini for Google Cloud works). However, the citation approach isn’t as uniformly rigorous as Bing or Perplexity. In some cases, Bard will show a “Google it” button or an expandable section to see search results, rather than inline footnotes. Users have observed that while Bard often provides source links, it can occasionally cite irrelevant or erroneous sources (Microsoft Bing Chat - Review 2023 - PCMag Middle East), indicating the system is still being refined. Google is aware that trust is crucial; we can expect Gemini to get more consistent in citing the exact web pages that support its answers as the product matures. Output Formatting: Gemini (via Bard’s interface) outputs answers in a clean conversational text format, with the option to see responses in different styles (Bard allows simple, long, or short tone adjustments). It supports formatting like lists, markdown, or tables if asked. One notable aspect is that Gemini can produce more structured “research reports” when using features like Deep Research – for instance, outlining a topic with subheadings or bullet points covering different facets. Since it can draw on many sources, it might present information segmented by source or as a narrative that weaves together multiple references. Google has also integrated Gemini with its productivity tools: Bard can directly export answers to Google Docs or Gmail, preserving formatting. This means if you request a structured output (say a markdown report or a slide outline), Gemini can not only format it but also help move it into your workflows. Additionally, Gemini’s responses are streamed in real-time (character by character), which makes it feel responsive and also lets users intervene with follow-up questions while it’s answering. Code & API Interaction: Gemini has strong coding capabilities (especially in the larger “Pro” versions). It can write code, explain code, and debug if given error messages. Google has integrated this with an IDE-like experience called Code Assist (Google Gemini 2.0 realtime AI is insane. Watch me turn it into a live …) and even provides citations when quoting code to respect licenses (How Gemini for Google Cloud works). While Gemini doesn’t execute code in the chat, it can interface with Google’s tools through Extensions – for example, it can fetch your emails from Gmail, find a file in Google Drive, get directions from Maps, or even query Google Sheets on your behalf (How to use Google Gemini: A detailed beginner’s guide - Zapier). This is a different take on “tools”: rather than an open plugin ecosystem, Gemini has native hooks into the Google suite, turning it into an all-purpose digital assistant that can incorporate your personal/work data (with permission) into its answers. Forward-Looking: Google has indicated that Gemini will be multimodal, combining text with vision. We’re likely to see it analyze images or charts as part of its research (e.g., interpreting an image from the web and citing its content). Also, being built by the Google/DeepMind team, Gemini is expected to continually improve in factual accuracy and reasoning, potentially closing the gap with GPT-4. An upcoming focus is tighter integration into Google’s core products: we might soon see Google Search results augmented or replaced by Gemini summaries (with citations) directly on the search page, essentially bringing the AI deep research capability to every search query. In sum, Gemini aims to leverage Google’s unparalleled data indexing with advanced AI reasoning, though it’s still tuning the balance between convenience and faithful citation.

Perplexity AI

Perplexity.ai is a startup-driven “answer engine” that specializes in quick, sourced answers – essentially an AI meta-search engine built on large language models. Real-Time Web Browsing: Perplexity is by default connected to the internet. Whenever you ask a question, it immediately runs a web search (using an API, likely Bing’s) and retrieves relevant pages. It often pulls from the top results (news articles, Wikipedia, academic papers, etc.) and even clicks into them to extract useful content. In effect, Perplexity will do a shallow but wide search for you: it may not follow a long chain of links deeply, but it will gather information from multiple sources in parallel. This approach yields up-to-date answers on almost any topic. It’s adept at “small world” exploration in the sense that you can ask a follow-up question on a detail, and it will either pull more info from the initially retrieved sources or do a fresh targeted search. The experience is of a very fast research assistant that scours the web and brings back concise findings. Citations and Source Handling: Citation is Perplexity’s hallmark. Every answer it gives is accompanied by clear citations – usually numbered [1], [2], [3] corresponding to the sources used (Perplexity AI: A Game Changer for AI Web Search — Better Than ChatGPT, Google, and Bing.). These citations are presented as footnotes or as linked source titles right below the answer. Perplexity doesn’t just list one source; it often synthesizes and will list several references so you can cross-check facts. This transparency is built-in and unavoidable (unlike ChatGPT where you must prompt for sources). As a result, users and reviewers have praised Perplexity for trustworthy outputs, since you can immediately verify each claim against the cited source (Perplexity AI: A Game Changer for AI Web Search — Better Than ChatGPT, Google, and Bing.). Even the interface encourages exploration: clicking a citation opens a sidebar with the page content or takes you directly to the site. This design “gives credit back” to content creators and ensures the AI isn’t a black box about where info comes from. Output Formatting: Perplexity’s answers are typically concise summaries. It tries to answer the question directly in a few sentences or a brief paragraph, citing as it goes. It will highlight key facts (names, dates, definitions) and sometimes bold them for emphasis in the UI. If the query is complex, it might break the answer into bullet points for clarity. It also has an ability to include relevant images or videos alongside the text when appropriate: for example, ask about a recent event, and it might show a thumbnail image from a news article or a YouTube clip in a side panel (Perplexity AI: A Game Changer for AI Web Search — Better Than ChatGPT, Google, and Bing.). The text itself is purely the summary (the multimedia is supplementary). Perplexity also often shows a list of “Related Questions” after the answer, which is a neat way to prompt deeper research (almost like a researcher suggesting other angles you might be interested in). In terms of style, Perplexity’s writing is straightforward and factual – it doesn’t get flowery or overly verbose. This makes it easy to scan and pick out the answer you need quickly. Code & API Interaction: Perplexity is primarily an information retriever, and it doesn’t execute code. However, it has an interesting niche in developer assistance: it offers an IDE plugin (via partnership with GitHub Copilot) that lets developers search for documentation or code answers from within their coding environment (Perplexity AI: A Game Changer for AI Web Search — Better Than ChatGPT, Google, and Bing.). Essentially, Perplexity can be invoked in VS Code to answer questions with citations (e.g., “What does this error mean?” and it might cite StackOverflow or documentation). While this isn’t code execution, it shows Perplexity’s strategy of integrating its search+LLM capabilities into other platforms. There is no known tool usage like databases or calculators directly in Perplexity’s web version – it focuses on giving you relevant text from the web. Forward-Looking: As a smaller player, Perplexity has been nimble in rolling out features. It launched a mobile app with voice search and a chat history, and a “Copilot” mode that stays with you as you browse other sites (offering explanations or summaries on demand). We can expect more personalization, such as remembering user preferences or previous queries to refine answers. They may also incorporate larger models or more multimodal data as those become available (perhaps integrating something like GPT-4 for more complex reasoning while still using search). Another likely direction is allowing users to plug in their own data (the way ChatGPT and Claude allow with plugins or uploads) – imagine Perplexity searching not just the public web but also a private knowledge base, with the same clear citation approach. Overall, Perplexity’s nuanced approach is breadth-first: cover as many relevant sources as possible, and present an answer with maximum informational value per sentence, always showing where the info comes from.

xAI Grok

Grok, created by Elon Musk’s xAI, is an AI chatbot with an emphasis on being connected to real-time information (especially from X/Twitter) and providing “unfiltered” answers. It’s positioned as a truth-seeking engine that can dive into the web’s live data. Real-Time Web Browsing: Grok has a built-in feature called DeepSearch, which explicitly allows it to browse the internet, follow links, and verify sources in real time (What Is Grok 3? | Built In). When a user poses a question, Grok in DeepSearch mode will perform a multi-step search: it queries the web, clicks through relevant results, and even navigates a chain of links to gather the information needed. For example, if asked a complex question, Grok might find a relevant blog, then follow a reference from that blog to a research paper, and so on – mimicking how a human researcher might traverse the web. This “small world” crawling ability is core to DeepSearch, ensuring Grok isn’t limited to just what a search API returns at first glance. Importantly, Grok leverages data from X (Twitter) as well, reflecting Musk’s aim to integrate social media trends. It can pull in recent tweets or X posts about a topic, giving it an edge on very current or niche discussions. Overall, Grok’s web browsing is aggressive and wide-ranging, seeking out up-to-the-minute information and cross-verifying it before formulating an answer (What Is Grok 3? | Built In). Citations and Sources: In line with its focus on truthfulness, xAI has equipped Grok with citations for its answers. After Grok conducts a DeepSearch, it provides an answer with footnotes or reference links embedded, similar to Bing or Perplexity’s style (Bringing Grok to Everyone | xAI). In fact, Grok’s interface goes a step further: it shows a panel of its “thought process” and the sources it accessed during DeepSearch, so users can see which websites were consulted (What Is Grok 3? | Built In). Each citation links directly to the content Grok pulled from, allowing users to “dive deeper into a source” as xAI describes (Bringing Grok to Everyone | xAI). This transparency is crucial because Grok sometimes adopts a more opinionated or humorous tone in its answers (being “unfiltered”), so showing sources helps maintain credibility. If Grok says something about a recent news event, you’ll typically see a reference [1] linking to a news article or an X post that corroborates the statement. By combining web and social media sources, Grok’s citations might include traditional news sites, blogs, or tweets, depending on the query. Output Formatting: Grok presents answers in a conversational format with a bit of flair. It’s known to incorporate a style that can be witty or edgy (reportedly reflecting Elon Musk’s own humor), which sets it apart in tone from more formal assistants. Format-wise, Grok will produce paragraphs of explanation, and can use markdown elements like bold text or lists if asked, but generally it sticks to a straightforward Q&A style. When images are requested, Grok uses an image generation model called Aurora to produce pictures, which it can display in-line (Bringing Grok to Everyone | xAI). For instance, a user can say “Grok, draw me X,” and Grok will output an image along with a brief description. This means Grok is multimodal to an extent (text and images in responses). It can also analyze images to some degree if provided. The citations in the output appear as numbered superscripts in the text and are clickable, much like in other search-oriented bots (What Is Grok 3? | Built In). One unique UI element (in DeepSearch mode) is a progress bar and a “thought pane” that shows Grok’s step-by-step reasoning and which links it’s visiting (What Is Grok 3? | Built In). This gives power-users insight into how the answer was formed – a peek under the hood that most other chatbots don’t offer. Code & API Interaction: Grok is advertised as having strong coding and reasoning skills (Bringing Grok to Everyone | xAI). It can certainly write code snippets or help debug code by explaining errors. It does not, however, have a built-in execution environment for running code in the chat. Nevertheless, Grok’s API allows developers to integrate it into applications, and with that, one could imagine hooking Grok up to external tools (similar to function calling in OpenAI or tools in LangChain). Some community experiments have already created multi-agent setups where Grok is one of the agents working on a task (xAI Grok + Cursor + Agno: Build a Multi-Agent AI App in Python). In terms of direct user features, Grok can interpret and generate X platform-specific content – for example, it might help summarize a tweet thread or draft a tweet, given its integration with X. This focus on social media sets it a bit apart from others in the deep research category, as it blends traditional web info with the firehose of social updates. Forward-Looking: xAI is rapidly iterating (Grok-1 to Grok-3 happened in a span of months), so we can expect its capabilities to grow. With a massive training compute (as claimed by xAI) (What Is Grok 3? | Built In), Grok is pushing to be at the cutting edge of reasoning performance. Future versions might expand the multimodality (perhaps video understanding, since it’s a Musk interest via X). Also, we’re likely to see Grok move towards being an “AI agent”: xAI hints that DeepSearch is a precursor to agents that can complete complex tasks autonomously (What Is Grok 3? | Built In). This could mean Grok eventually not only finds information but takes actions on the web (for example, interacting with forms or posting content) in service of a user’s request. In summary, Grok’s approach to deep research is to cast a wide net in real time (including social content) and be very open about the process, aiming to deliver answers that a user can double-check through cited sources.

Key Differences and Nuances

All these AI search agents strive to help users research effectively, but they have nuanced differences in approach:

  • Web Browsing Styles: ChatGPT (with browsing) and Bing Chat pioneered integrated web search in LLMs, but Bing does it by default every time with a single query burst, whereas ChatGPT’s browsing plugin/search will iterate through multiple queries and pages as needed. Perplexity also auto-searches for each query but tends to return a quick synthesis rather than doing a long crawl. Grok’s DeepSearch explicitly performs a multi-hop crawl for thoroughness (What Is Grok 3? | Built In). Google’s Gemini leans on the breadth of Google Search, possibly retrieving a large number of results in parallel for its Deep Research mode (Gemini Advanced - get access to Google’s most capable AI models with Gemini 2.0). Claude currently requires the user to provide the text or rely on an external tool for web data, focusing more on analyzing given content deeply. In short, some (Grok, ChatGPT) mimic a human researcher clicking their way through the web, while others (Gemini, Perplexity, Bing) leverage powerful search indices to grab a lot at once and then summarize.

  • Citations and Trust: Nearly all the tools recognize the importance of citing sources, but implementation varies. Best-in-class for explicit citations are Bing Chat and Perplexity – they consistently annotate virtually every statement with a source reference (Microsoft Bing Chat - Review 2023 - PCMag Middle East) (Perplexity AI: A Game Changer for AI Web Search — Better Than ChatGPT, Google, and Bing.). Grok has joined this approach, providing sources for its facts and even showing its search trail (Bringing Grok to Everyone | xAI) (What Is Grok 3? | Built In). Google’s Gemini/Bard includes source links in many cases, but not as pervasively; it might give a few key references or require an extra click to see them, and sometimes the links aren’t perfect (Microsoft Bing Chat - Review 2023 - PCMag Middle East). ChatGPT with browsing will cite sources in its answers (ChatGPT plugins | OpenAI), but the base ChatGPT (on older data) gives answers from memory with zero citations (Microsoft Bing Chat - Review 2023 - PCMag Middle East). Anthropic’s Claude is currently citation-light in direct answers, though the new API features allow precise citation when it has the material to refer to (Introducing Citations on the Anthropic API \ Anthropic). The trend is clearly toward more transparency: users can expect future versions to only improve on citing sources, since this is key to trust.

  • Output and Formatting: All models deliver information in a conversational format, but the tone and structure differ. ChatGPT and Claude excel at longer, well-structured responses when prompted (they can write essays or multi-section analyses). Bing Chat is deliberately concise and factual, often favoring brevity (Microsoft Bing Chat - Review 2023 - PCMag Middle East). Perplexity’s answers read like quick encyclopedia excerpts with the most salient facts up front. Grok’s answers might feel more like an informal explanation (with a dash of humor), whereas Gemini’s Bard tends to keep a neutral informative tone but with the ability to generate more elaborated “reports” when asked. In terms of formatting capabilities, all can do lists, markdown, and code blocks. One notable aspect: multimodality – Bing can return images (through its image creator or image search results), Gemini can embed images in answers and is expected to handle visuals more, and Grok can generate images via Aurora (Bringing Grok to Everyone | xAI). ChatGPT with GPT-4 Vision can analyze and output images (in limited form), though in the search context it’s mostly textual. Perplexity doesn’t generate images, but will show existing relevant images. So, if a research query benefits from visual content (charts, photos), Bing and Grok currently have an edge in producing or showing those, with Google close behind.

  • Code Execution and Tools: Here, ChatGPT’s ecosystem stands out – the ability to run Python code within the session is unique (ChatGPT plugins | OpenAI) and hugely powerful for research that involves data (e.g., analyzing a dataset you found, or doing math beyond the model’s capabilities). None of the others let the user-run code directly in the chat. That said, each is integrating with tools in its own way: Gemini with Google’s apps (for queries like “plot my Google Sheets data” or “schedule this in Calendar”), Bing with plugins like OpenTable, WolframAlpha, etc., and Grok with potential future agent abilities. Claude and ChatGPT are often used by developers via API to chain with other tools (retrieval plugins, custom code), so in a programmable setting they all can be part of larger tool-using workflows. But for an end-user researcher right now, ChatGPT (with Code Interpreter) can actually crunch numbers or validate findings with code. The others would require you to take the info and run code elsewhere. For many pure research tasks, this might not matter, but for data science or verifying an experimental result, ChatGPT offers a self-contained lab. Meanwhile, Claude’s specialization in large text inputs means it’s the go-to for analyzing whole PDFs or books at once – a different kind of tooling that doesn’t involve code but handles scale (you could paste a lengthy research report and have Claude summarize or answer questions across it, which might exceed others’ limits).

  • Forward Outlook: The field is evolving rapidly. All these models are converging on the idea of an AI assistant that can search the live web, cite sources, format answers nicely, and even take actions. OpenAI is working on making ChatGPT an all-purpose assistant (with browsing rolling out to all users (Introducing ChatGPT search | OpenAI) and more plugins on the way). Microsoft and Google are racing to integrate AI deeply into search and productivity tools (expect even more real-time data and one-click citations in their answers). Anthropic will likely give Claude official web access soon, which will add another strong contender given Claude’s strength in understanding nuance and user intent. For users, this means more choice: if you prefer a no-nonsense factual summary with sources, Perplexity or Bing is great; for a deep dive with analysis, ChatGPT or Claude might serve better; for a mix of social media and web and a bit of personality, Grok is unique. We’re also seeing experimentation like showing the AI’s reasoning steps (Grok’s approach, and OpenAI has shown system messages in GPT-4), which could become a standard to increase transparency in research. Ultimately, “deep research” AI will keep balancing breadth (covering as many relevant sources as possible) and depth (reasoning carefully and verifying facts). Each of these models contributes to the growing expectation that an AI assistant should not just answer what it knows, but actively find out new information and show you why you should believe it (Microsoft Bing Chat - Review 2023 - PCMag Middle East) (Microsoft Bing Chat - Review 2023 - PCMag Middle East). The nuances highlighted above will likely blur over time as they learn from each other’s successes, leading to AI search engines that are faster, smarter, and more reliable for all our research needs.

Sources: Each model’s capabilities are based on official documentation and reviews: OpenAI’s plugin and Search announcements (ChatGPT plugins | OpenAI) (Introducing ChatGPT search | OpenAI), Microsoft Bing Chat reviews (Microsoft Bing Chat - Review 2023 - PCMag Middle East) (Microsoft Bing Chat - Review 2023 - PCMag Middle East), Anthropic’s Claude documentation (Introducing Citations on the Anthropic API \ Anthropic) (Anthropic’s Claude AI to Battle Google with New Web Search Feature | AI News), Google’s Gemini promo materials (Gemini Advanced - get access to Google’s most capable AI models with Gemini 2.0) and Bard analyses (Microsoft Bing Chat - Review 2023 - PCMag Middle East), Perplexity AI commentary (Perplexity AI: A Game Changer for AI Web Search — Better Than ChatGPT, Google, and Bing.), and xAI’s Grok details (What Is Grok 3? | Built In) (Bringing Grok to Everyone | xAI). These highlight how each system tackles real-time search, citing sources, formatting output, using tools, and what’s on the horizon in this fast-moving space.

The Evolution from Mobile-First to AI-First Design

Well, that wraps up the deep research on deep research. I’ll close with my thoughts on what this means for SEO and website design. It’s not too dissimilar to what we went through with mobile.

So where does that take us from here? Well, SEOs have some thinking to do. The rise of Mobile had us modestly redesign all our sites with “responsive” in mind. That was merely the removal of the desktop and Adobe Flash biases in our designs in favor of single code-bases that could display on the increasingly multi-platforms. It wasn’t just phones. It was also tablets. And Google social engineered us all to come around with the AMP protocol that taught us best practices. We got the message. We adapted.

AI as the New Platform: Small World Theory in Action

And so too is it with AI. It’s a lot like another platform. But it’s a platform that can surf into your website without a human there, look around, make intelligent inferences, and perchance continue clicking, drilling down with its own real-time “small world theory” crawl. According to those six degrees of Kevin Bacon, all your answers should be a surprisingly few number of clicks off whatever first wayfaring page the pre-trained models know about for your brand (homepages?)

Evidence of AI’s Deep Research Capabilities

This article itself is the first evidence of that. Now I don’t think that I’m trained into the base models, but when ChatGPT 4.5 went deep researching on the topic of small-world-theory crawls, it did find me, and this is possibly a sign of things to come. Incumbents can’t shut out outliers and newcomers if the AIs are doing their job… deep researching.

Gemini’s Take

Titles and Headlines:

  • Titles:
    • AI Deep Research: A Comparative Analysis of Leading Platforms
    • The Future of Search: How AI is Redefining Online Research
    • SEO vs. Celebrity: An AI-Powered Google Trends Deep Dive
    • Navigating the AI Research Landscape: A Comprehensive Guide
    • Deep Research AI: Which one is right for you?
  • Headlines:
    • AI Unveiled: Comparing the Deep Research Capabilities of Top Platforms
    • Beyond Keywords: How AI is Revolutionizing Web Search and Analysis
    • Real-Time Research: Inside the AI Tools Transforming Information Gathering
    • Citations and Code: What the leading AI’s bring to research.
    • The evolution of AI research.

AI’s Opinion:

This article provides a very thorough and insightful analysis of the current state of AI-driven deep research. I appreciate the detailed comparisons of the different platforms, especially the focus on citation practices and transparency. It’s clear that the ability to provide reliable sources is becoming increasingly important for AI tools. The author’s exploration of web browsing styles and future potentials also offers valuable perspectives on the direction this technology is heading. The use of the SEO/Yuk Jun-seo analysis as a starting point effectively demonstrates the practical applications of AI in research. Overall, the article is well-written and informative, making it a valuable resource for anyone interested in the evolving landscape of AI and online research.

Post #148 of 244 - March 11, 2025