Tag: AI Use Cases

  • Jared Kaplan: The Physicist Who Discovered AI Scaling Laws

    Jared Kaplan: The Physicist Who Discovered AI Scaling Laws

    Updated September 30, 2026.

    Claude AI · Fitted Claude

    Jared Kaplan is Anthropic’s co-founder and Chief Science Officer and the physicist who co-authored OpenAI’s 2020 scaling-laws paper, which showed language-model performance improves predictably with parameters, data, and compute. He also co-authored the GPT-3 paper, left OpenAI in 2021 with six colleagues to start Anthropic, and now leads science plus Responsible Scaling Policy release calls (including Claude 4). Forbes estimated his net worth at about $15.5 billion after Anthropic’s May 2026 funding round.

    Entity bios like this get compressed into AI answers; clean dates and citation-rate measurement matter as much as the headline.

    Academic background

    Physics first, then empirical laws for ML systems.

    Kaplan is a theoretical physicist with a Stanford BS and a Harvard PhD (2009, thesis on holography). He is an associate professor at Johns Hopkins University, on leave while at Anthropic. The through-line is compact laws for messy systems—quantum gravity first, language models second.

    The discovery that changed AI: scaling laws

    Compute, data, and model size tied to predictable loss improvements.

    In January 2020 Kaplan and colleagues at OpenAI published “Scaling Laws for Neural Language Models”. Cross-entropy loss improves as a power law when parameters, dataset size, and training compute grow—often across many orders of magnitude. Labs could estimate returns before a full cluster run.

    The paper underwrote the compute-heavy playbook behind GPT-4, Claude, and later frontier stacks. Later work added constraints (data quality, alignment cost), but the core bet—scale buys capability on a curve—still organizes capital in 2026.

    OpenAI years and GPT-3

    Kaplan joined OpenAI in 2019. He co-authored “Language Models are Few-Shot Learners” (2020)—the GPT-3 paper—and worked on early Codex-related research alongside Sam McCandlish, Tom Brown, Dario Amodei, and others who would co-found Anthropic.

    Co-founding Anthropic

    Seven OpenAI researchers founded Anthropic in 2021.

    Kaplan was one of seven OpenAI researchers who left in 2021 to found Anthropic. As Chief Science Officer he shapes Claude’s research direction. In October 2024 Anthropic named him responsible scaling officer for safety assessments under the Responsible Scaling Policy—work TIME cited when it put him on the TIME100 AI list for 2025 after his Claude 4 safety call.

    Washington and public policy

    CEO Dario Amodei has testified orally before Senate committees; Kaplan’s on-record policy work includes a December 2023 written statement to a Senate AI Insight Forum on risk and alignment, where he walked through scaling trends and Anthropic’s safety framing.

    Track how those sources surface in answers with an AI citation monitoring guide and LLM visibility measurement if you publish expert bios competitors scrape.

    Net worth and Forbes 400

    Forbes estimated Kaplan at roughly $3.7 billion in 2025, below that year’s Forbes 400 cutoff. After Anthropic’s $65 billion May 2026 round at about a $965 billion valuation, Forbes put each co-founder at about $15.5 billion, with Kaplan on the 2026 Forbes 400 tied near No. 75. See Forbes’s profile for the live estimate; reported IPO timing into late 2026 would move the number again.

    Why this profile matters for AI search

    Answer engines compress entity pages with primary links (OpenAI, Senate PDFs, Forbes, TIME) into one-line bios. Stale net-worth lines and vague “testified before Congress” wording drop out of GEO case studies. For citation mining on search surfaces, see the Bing citation mining experiment.

    Related on Tygart Media: Dario Amodei · Anthropic IPO · how to use Claude.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    What is Jared Kaplan known for?

    Jared Kaplan is best known for co-authoring AI scaling laws—the mathematical relationships that predict how language-model performance improves with more parameters, data, and training compute. His 2020 OpenAI paper “Scaling Laws for Neural Language Models” is widely treated as foundational for frontier model planning.

    What is Jared Kaplan’s role at Anthropic?

    Kaplan is Anthropic’s co-founder and Chief Science Officer. He also oversees Anthropic’s Responsible Scaling Policy process as the company’s responsible scaling officer, deciding safety assessments before major model releases.

    What is Jared Kaplan’s net worth?

    Forbes estimated Kaplan’s net worth at about $15.5 billion after Anthropic’s May 2026 funding round, when he joined the Forbes 400. Estimates move with private-market valuations and can change quickly.

    Did Jared Kaplan work at OpenAI?

    Yes. Kaplan joined OpenAI in 2019 and co-authored “Scaling Laws for Neural Language Models” (2020) and “Language Models are Few-Shot Learners” (2020), the paper behind GPT-3. He left with six colleagues to co-found Anthropic in 2021.

    What are AI scaling laws?

    Scaling laws are empirical power-law relationships showing that language-model loss improves smoothly as you scale model size, dataset size, and compute. Kaplan’s team showed labs could forecast capability gains before spending full training budgets—a logic that still drives frontier training in 2026.

    What is Jared Kaplan’s academic background?

    Kaplan trained as a theoretical physicist. He earned a PhD in physics from Harvard University in 2009 and is an associate professor at Johns Hopkins University (on leave while at Anthropic).


    Need this set up for your team?
    Talk to Will →

  • AI Citation Optimization: How to Get Cited by AI Systems

    AI Citation Optimization: How to Get Cited by AI Systems

    Tygart Media / Content Strategy
    The Practitioner JournalField Notes
    By Will Tygart
    · Practitioner-grade
    · From the workbench

    Being cited by AI systems is not luck and it’s not purely a domain authority game. There are structural characteristics of content that make AI systems more or less likely to pull from it. Here’s what those characteristics are and how to build them in deliberately.

    Why Content Structure Determines Citation Likelihood

    AI systems — whether Perplexity, ChatGPT with web search, or Google AI Overviews — are trying to answer a question. When they search the web and retrieve candidate content, they’re looking for the passage or page that most directly and reliably answers the query. The content that wins is the content that makes the answer easiest to extract.

    This has direct structural implications. A 3,000-word narrative essay that eventually answers a question on page 2 loses to a 600-word page that answers the question in the first paragraph, provides supporting evidence, and includes a definition. Not because shorter is better, but because clarity of answer placement is better.

    The Structural Characteristics That Drive Citation

    1. Direct Answer in the First 100 Words

    Every piece of content you want AI systems to cite should answer the primary question it’s targeting before the first scroll. AI retrieval systems don’t read like humans — they identify the most relevant passage, and that passage needs to contain the answer, not just lead toward it.

    Test: take your target query and your first 100 words. Does the answer exist in those 100 words? If not, restructure until it does. The rest of the piece can develop nuance, context, and supporting evidence — but the answer must be front-loaded.

    2. Explicit Q&A Formatting

    Question-and-answer structure signals to AI systems that the content is explicitly organized around answering queries. H3 headers phrased as questions, followed by direct answers, are one of the most reliable patterns for citation capture.

    This is why FAQ sections work — not because of FAQPage schema specifically, but because the underlying structure gives AI systems a clean extraction target. Schema reinforces it; the structure is the foundation.

    3. Defined Terms and Named Concepts

    Content that defines terms clearly — “X is Y” statements — becomes citable for queries looking for definitions. AI systems frequently answer “what is X” queries by pulling the clearest definition they can find. If your content doesn’t include a crisp definitional sentence, it’s not competing for definition queries even if you’ve written a thorough treatment of the topic.

    Add definition boxes. State “AI citation rate is the percentage of sampled AI queries where your domain appears as a cited source.” Don’t bury the definition in the third paragraph of an explanation.

    4. Specific, Verifiable Facts

    AI systems weight specificity. “$0.08 per session-hour” gets cited. “A relatively modest fee” does not. “60 requests per minute for create endpoints” gets cited. “Limited rate limits apply” does not.

    Replace hedged language with concrete numbers and specific claims wherever your content supports it. Don’t fabricate specificity — wrong specific numbers are worse than honest hedging. But wherever you have real, verifiable data, make it explicit and prominent.

    5. Entity Clarity

    Content that makes clear who is speaking, what organization they represent, and what their basis for authority is gets cited more reliably. This is the E-E-A-T signal applied to AI citation: the system needs to assess whether this source is credible enough to cite.

    Name the author. State the organization. Link to primary sources. Include dates on time-sensitive claims (“as of April 2026”). These signals tell the AI system this content has an accountable source, not anonymous text.

    6. Freshness on Time-Sensitive Topics

    For any topic where recency matters — product pricing, regulatory status, current events — AI systems heavily weight recently indexed, recently updated content. A page published April 2026 beats a page published January 2025 for queries about current status, even if the older page has higher domain authority.

    Update time-sensitive content. Add “last updated” dates. Re-publish with fresh timestamps when the underlying facts change. Freshness signals are real citation drivers for volatile topic areas.

    7. Speakable and Structured Data Markup

    Speakable schema explicitly marks the passages in your content best suited for AI extraction. It’s a direct signal to AI retrieval systems: “this paragraph is the answer.” Combined with FAQPage schema, Article schema, and HowTo schema where relevant, structured markup makes your content more parseable.

    Schema doesn’t replace the underlying structure — it reinforces it. A well-structured page with schema beats a poorly structured page with schema. But a well-structured page with schema beats a well-structured page without it.

    8. Internal Link Architecture

    AI systems that crawl the web assess topical depth partly through link structure. A page that sits within a tight cluster of related pages — all cross-linking around a topic — signals topical authority more strongly than an isolated page, even if the isolated page’s content is comparable.

    Build the cluster. The hub-and-spoke architecture is as relevant for AI citation as it is for traditional SEO. Every spoke article should link to the hub; the hub should link to every spoke.

    What Doesn’t Work

    A few patterns that are intuitively appealing but don’t translate to citation lift:

    • More content for its own sake: 5,000 words of padded content is not more citable than 900 words of dense, accurate content. AI retrieval is looking for passage quality, not page length.
    • Keyword density: Traditional keyword repetition strategies don’t make content more citable. The query match is handled at retrieval; the citation decision is about answer quality, not keyword frequency.
    • Generic authority claims: “We’re the leading experts in X” is not citable. A specific data point that demonstrates expertise is.

    The Compound Effect

    These characteristics compound. A page with a direct front-loaded answer, Q&A structure, defined terms, specific facts, clear entity signals, fresh timestamps, and schema markup sitting within a well-linked cluster is materially more citable than a page with only two or three of these characteristics. The full stack produces disproportionate results.

    For the monitoring layer: How to Track When AI Systems Cite You. For the metrics: What Is AI Citation Rate?. For the full citation monitoring guide: AI Citation Monitoring Guide.


    For the infrastructure layer: Claude Managed Agents Pricing Reference | Complete FAQ Hub.

  • AI Citation Monitoring Tools — What Exists, What Doesn’t, What We Built

    AI Citation Monitoring Tools — What Exists, What Doesn’t, What We Built

    The Lab · Tygart Media
    Experiment Nº 570 · Methodology Notes
    METHODS · OBSERVATIONS · RESULTS

    You want to monitor whether AI systems are citing your content. What tools actually exist for this, what they do, what they don’t do, and what we’ve built ourselves when nothing on the market fit.

    The Market as of April 2026

    Four-stage funnel: citation, click, engage, convert
    The market as of April 2026.

    The AI citation monitoring category is real but nascent. Here’s an honest inventory:

    Established SEO Platforms Adding AI Visibility Metrics

    Several major SEO platforms have added “AI visibility” or “AI search” modules in the past 6–12 months. These generally track:

    • Whether your domain appears in AI Overviews for tracked keywords (via SERP scraping)
    • Brand mentions in AI-generated snippets
    • Comparative visibility versus competitors in AI search results

    Ahrefs, Semrush, and Moz have all moved in this direction to varying degrees. Verify current feature availability — this has been an active development area and capabilities have changed rapidly.

    Mention Monitoring Tools Expanding to AI

    Brand mention tools like Brand24 and Mention have begun tracking AI-generated content that includes brand references. The challenge: they’re tracking brand name occurrences in crawled content, not necessarily AI citation events. Useful for brand visibility in AI-generated content that gets published, less useful for tracking in-session citations.

    Purpose-Built AI Citation Tools (Emerging)

    Several purpose-built tools targeting AI citation tracking specifically have launched or raised funding in early 2026. This category is moving fast. As of our last check:

    • Tools focused on tracking specific brand or entity mentions across AI platforms
    • API-first tools targeting developers who want to build citation monitoring into their own workflows
    • Dashboard tools with pre-built query sets for common industry categories

    Treat any specific product recommendation here as a starting point for your own research — the category will look different in 6 months.

    Google Search Console

    The strongest existing tool, and it’s free. AI Overviews that cite your pages register as impressions and clicks in GSC under the relevant queries. This is first-party data from Google itself. Limitation: covers only Google AI Overviews, not Perplexity, ChatGPT, or other platforms.

    What We Built

    Desk with laptop, checklist notebook, and billing card ready before creating an Anthropic API key
    What we built.

    When no existing tool covered the specific workflows we needed, we built our own. The stack:

    Perplexity API Query Runner

    A Cloud Run service that runs a predefined query set against Perplexity’s API on a weekly schedule. It parses the citations field from each response, checks for domain appearances, and writes results to a BigQuery table. Total engineering time: roughly one day. Ongoing cost: minimal (Cloud Run idle cost + Perplexity API usage).

    The output: a weekly BigQuery record per query showing which domains Perplexity cited, with timestamps. Trend queries show citation rate over time by query cluster.

    GSC AI Overview Monitor

    Not a custom build — just systematic review of GSC data. We check weekly which queries are generating AI Overview impressions for our tracked sites. The signal: if a page is generating AI Overview impressions on new queries, that’s a citation event.

    Manual ChatGPT Sampling

    For highest-priority queries, manual weekly sampling of ChatGPT with web search enabled. We log results to a shared spreadsheet. Less scalable than the API approach, but ChatGPT’s web search activation is inconsistent enough that API automation adds complexity without proportional reliability gain.

    What Doesn’t Exist (That Would Be Useful)

    Comparison of Claude how-to fit versus local service page fit for assistants
    What doesn’t exist that would be useful.

    The tool gaps that we still feel:

    • Cross-platform citation dashboard: A single view showing citation rate across Perplexity, ChatGPT, Gemini, and AI Overviews for the same query set. Nobody has built this cleanly yet.
    • Historical citation rate database: Knowing your citation rate is useful. Knowing whether it improved after you published a new piece of content is more useful. The temporal correlation is hard to establish with spot-check sampling.
    • Competitor citation tracking at scale: Easy to check manually for specific queries; hard to monitor systematically across a large competitor set and query space.

    These gaps exist because the category is new, not because the problems are technically hard. Expect the tool landscape to fill in significantly over the next 12 months.

    How to calculate citation rate: What Is AI Citation Rate?. How to set up tracking: How to Track When ChatGPT or Perplexity Cites Your Content. How to optimize for citations: How to Write Content That AI Systems Cite.

    Related on Tygart Media: AI citation monitoring guide · track citations · citing sources.


    The Perplexity API monitoring stack we built runs on Claude. For the hosted infrastructure context: Claude Managed Agents Pricing Reference | Complete FAQ.

  • What Is AI Citation Rate? (And How to Calculate Yours)

    What Is AI Citation Rate? (And How to Calculate Yours)

    Updated September 30, 2026.

    Citation rate for AI-generated responses: (queries in your sample where the model cited your domain or URL) ÷ (total queries you sampled) × 100. That is a rate you own. Bing Webmaster Tools AI Performance reports total citations, page-level counts, and—since the June 2026 preview—Citation Share, Intents, Topics, and Compare for grounding queries. None of those Bing numbers is your sampled rate until you pick a denominator.

    Direct Answer: AI citation rate is cited queries divided by sampled queries, times 100, measured per platform. Bing’s total citations measure volume; Citation Share is your site’s percentage of all citations shown for one grounding query—not the same fraction. Define 20–100 target queries, log cited yes/no, then track the line after you refresh content on the URL that already earns citations.

    Definition

    AI citation rate

    The percentage of sampled AI queries where a specific domain or URL appears as a cited source.

    Formula: (queries where your domain or URL appeared as a source) ÷ (total queries sampled) × 100

    This is observational math on a sample you control. It is not a ranking, a traffic metric, or Bing’s Citation Share.

    Citations vs citation rate (the Bing trap)

    Microsoft clarified the AI Performance vocabulary in 2026. Treat each metric as a different question.

    • Total citations — how often your URLs were shown as sources in AI answers across Copilot, Bing AI summaries, and supported partner surfaces in the date range you select.
    • Citation Share — your citations for a specific grounding query divided by all citations shown for that same query, times 100. High volume can still mean low share when many domains split the citation space.
    • Grounding query — the phrase Bing associates with retrieval that led to citations. Use it to cluster your manual sample, not as a substitute for running the sample.
    • Citation rate (yours) — cited queries in your log ÷ queries you actually ran (or a defined export window you label) × 100.

    For how to read the dashboard without treating citations as clicks, see how to read Bing Webmaster Tools AI citations. For ongoing logging across ChatGPT, Claude, Perplexity, and AI Overviews, use the AI citation monitoring guide.

    How to calculate it

    1. Define the sample

    Pick 20–100 queries that match how you win work—not vanity prompts. Sample separately on Perplexity, ChatGPT with browsing/search enabled, Google AI Overviews, and Bing/Copilot. Do not blend platforms into one headline rate.

    2. Log every run

    Record query text, platform, date, cited yes/no, exact URL cited vs domain-only mention, and which competitor URL appeared if you were absent. A spreadsheet is enough; the discipline is what matters.

    3. Compute and segment

    Rate = cited ÷ sampled × 100, by platform and by query cluster (service + geo, software comparison, pricing, etc.). Pair the rate with LLM visibility measurement so you see mentions that never become footnotes.

    4. Baseline, then patch in place

    Run a 4–6 week baseline, then measure the delta after you update the slug that already has citation history. Do not mint a twin URL for the same intent—RE-BITE pages keep their addresses for a reason. When citations stall after a quiet period, check whether crawlers are seeing the refresh; our IndexNow speed test compares how fast Bing, Google, and GPT-oriented crawlers pick up a changed URL.

    Worked example (Tygart Media, Bing export)

    In a trailing ~30-day Bing AI Performance export pulled 9 September 2026, this domain showed 913 grounding queries and about 126,700 total citations. On the grounding family around “citation rate calculation AI-generated responses,” one line read 11,123 citations at 34.06% Citation Share. Share describes Bing’s slice for that query; it is not the cited ÷ sampled rate from a manual audit. Re-pull your own window in Bing—counts move with demand, model updates, and partner refresh cycles.

    Vertical example: a $1–10M restoration shop

    Do not use Tygart Media’s software-pricing Citation Share as the shop’s KPI. Sample the ~20 queries that mirror dispatch: “water damage restoration [city],” Xactimate supplement disputes, emergency dry-out vs rebuild scope. Count whether the contractor domain, Google Business Profile, or a managed spoke was cited. One citation on a generic AI tooling query is not a booked job. Patterns from GEO case studies show lifts when answer boxes match how estimators and adjusters actually ask questions—not when marketing copies SaaS keywords.

    When a citation does convert, model value with calculating the value of an AI citation and tie outcomes to restoration job profitability dashboards instead of citation counts alone.

    FAQ

    How do you calculate citation rate for AI-generated responses?
    Cited queries ÷ sampled queries × 100. Run the math separately for each platform and query cluster.

    Is a Bing AI Performance citation count a citation rate?
    No. Total citations are a volume count. Citation Share is your site’s share of citations for one grounding query. Your rate still needs a denominator you choose.

    What is the difference between citation share and citation rate?
    Citation Share is Bing’s fraction of all citations shown for a single grounding query that went to your domain. Citation rate is your cited-query count divided by a sample you ran (or defined), times 100.

    What is a good AI citation rate?
    There is no published benchmark. Track your own line after content and structure changes.

    Should I combine ChatGPT, Perplexity, and Google AI Overviews into one rate?
    No. Each system picks sources differently. A blended rate hides where you are actually winning or losing.

    How often should I recalculate citation rate?
    Baseline for 4–6 weeks, then recalculate after you patch a ranking slug or publish a material update—not daily.