Some input that I think is valuable… and I tend to agree with. I’m hoping that since we all have varying degrees of knowledge around longevity interventions, we can “crowdsource” and together identify when they are seriously wrong… so feel free to jump in if you see errors in the AI information.
Source: https://x.com/bengoertzel/status/1997144515061469642?s=20
I’m having better luck with this prompt to identify good pricing on any given category of product (adjust as needed in terms of the product, and key measures…). I use this prompt in Gemini Pro, Deep Research, Thinking mode.
PRICING PROMPT:
Role: You are a procurement specialist.
Task: Conduct a real-time web search to identify the Top 10 lowest-cost sources for standardized Cayenne Fruit extract capsules (2%–5% capsaicinoids) available for shipping in the USA.
Constraints:
Product Status: Must be explicitly labeled as capsules
Product: Must include standardized extract for capsaicinoids
Verification: Verify that the product is currently in stock. If a direct link cannot be verified, omit the item.
Output Format: Present the data in a Markdown table sorted by Lowest Cost Per 60mg.
Columns Required:
Rank
Product/Brand Name (Exact title)
Vendor
Total Weight (Original Unit & Grams)
Total Price (USD)
Cost Per 60mg of Capsaicinoids (Show calculation: Price / Total mg * 60),
Number Capsules Needed: Show how many capsules are required to meet the 60mg total
URL (Embed the direct link to the product page)
Note: If shipping costs are clearly visible (e.g., flat rate), note them in a separate text summary below the table.
Perplexity: I have subscribed to the Pro version via Paypal, first year free. It offers access to many LLMs, including ChatGPT5.2 and Gemini3Pro, but the results are not the same. Perplexity prioritizes web search, to the expense of verbosity and reasoning. Using the same languages on native platforms and the perplexity platforms is different, since different system prompts apply and in Perplexity the search is forced (so, pros and cons).
Based on the specialized literature and technical documentation available as of late 2025 (specifically following the November 2025 release of Gemini 3 Pro), the answer is no, they are not the same.
While the underlying model architecture (the “weights”) is theoretically identical, the inference environment, system orchestration, and wrapping create two distinct functional tools.
Here is the technical breakdown of the differences between Gemini 3 Pro on Perplexity vs. Gemini 3 Pro on Google AI Studio/Vertex AI.
The implementation differs significantly in technical constraints.
| Feature | Google AI Studio (Native) | Perplexity (Integration) |
|---|---|---|
| Context Window | Full Native Capacity (often 1M-2M tokens). You can load massive PDFs/Codebases. | Truncated/Managed. Perplexity limits the context window to manage costs and latency. It is rarely the full 1M+ window. |
| Multimodality | Native Input. You can upload video (native video tokenization), audio, and images directly for analysis. | Limited. Primarily text-based RAG. While it may accept images, it often lacks the native video/audio processing capabilities of the core model. |
| Latency/Tiers | Configurable. You usually access the standard weight precision (e.g., FP16 or BF16 equivalent). | Opaque. Third-party providers sometimes use “Distilled” or “Turbo” variants of the flagship models to save API costs, or aggressive quantization. |
| Reasoning Mode | Native “Deep Think”. Access to Google’s specific Chain-of-Thought (CoT) implementation (if enabled). | Always-on (but different). Perplexity documentation claims reasoning is “always enabled” for Gemini 3 Pro, but user reports suggest it is a different, often shallower reasoning pass compared to the native Google implementation. |
Because of the “System Prompt” layer, the output style is radically different:
Would you like me to provide a Python script using the Google Gen AI SDK to test the raw Gemini 3 Pro capabilities (e.g., long-context analysis) so you can compare it against your Perplexity results?
Yes, my ChatGPT 5 is far to personal and chatty. That’s why I am using Gemini Pro and Perplexity Pro instead for most things.
But you could use a master prompt, or system prompt in your preferences, that calibrates its behaviour and chattiness or verbosity. Whereas perplexity has an unchangeable system prompt which optimizes search-oriented results but tends to hamper independent reasoning, as far as I’ve understood.
I still have to decide which language to choose by subscription payment and I’m more undecided than ever. There is not a single perfect one and the LLMs panorama is moving too quickly.
@desertshores
I guess this is why I have not noticed the flattery and verboseness so many mention with AI… I almost exclusively use perplexity and it just answers my questions.
Having said that, I did recently instruct it not to flatter or lie me etc just because it seemed wise to do, but not because I had seen an issue. Or I’m just THAT unlikeable 
This is what I’ve been doing while waiting for the new year (but I went to sleep before midnight!). not strictly about prompts but languages. I had perplexity make a research on the performance of the main LLMs about various tasks related to health and longevity. Very interesting report, according to the examined data, Grok4.1 beats’em all. To be critically evaluated.
Provide a new research on the following LLMs_ a)GP.pdf (1.1 MB)
Generally, if I’m just looking for information, I ask the model some generic questions about a topic, then look for literature references it gives, then read them to see if they match what the model says. However, if I’m looking for something original, something that goes beyond the “null hypothesis” and what you see on a channel like Brad Stanfield’s (he just reads and repackages meta-analyses as far as I can tell, but sometimes rejects them), say, then I ask the model a pointed question with a phrase like that “I’m not looking for ideas that can be found in the literature” or something like that. Often, it just regurgitates the literature anyways and gives a smug response if I then try to steer it away from that; but every once in a while it makes a leap and writes novel and creative things.
Of course this doesn’t mean these creative things are correct; but they’re helpful nonetheless.
What I have noticed about Grok is that it is less limited by political correctness and has wider boundaries about what you can ask.
Yes - it’s interesting, definitely much wider boundaries on what you can ask about. I sometimes get shut down on other platforms when deep into biohacking ideas or things, but Grok lets me ask away. Sometimes you can get around the Gemini and Chat GPT limits by putting things in terms of a possible clinical trial of 1 at a medical school… then they allow me to map out possible dosing strategies, etc. for non-standard applications of medications, etc.
I’ve been talking with some researchers about how to best identify “good” research papers vs. less good research papers (or at least a way to prioritize papers for review and in-depth analysis).
In my discussions I’ve had the suggestion that I should look at the first author’s publishing history (in terms of high ranking papers/journals previously), and the publishing history of the lab he / she came out of for his / her PHD)… e.g. publishing papers in high ranked journals, and then do the same for the last author.
Here is the prompt I’ve roughed out for now - I’d appreciate feedback from others here who are familiar with judging the reputation / quality of research papers. The issue is there are tons of papers published each month and there is the question on which ones to cover here in the forum. This prompt would help guide me. All feedback welcome
@adssx @jnorm @Davin8r @McAlister @cl-user @DrFraser @John_Hemming
Here is the first draft:
To effectively evaluate the signal-to-noise ratio of a scientific paper, you need a prompt that forces a comprehensive bibliometric and pedigree audit. The following prompt is designed to be fed into an AI with web-browsing capabilities (like ChatGPT, Claude, or Perplexity) to extract specific data regarding author credibility and lab lineage.
Copy and paste the text below. Replace the bracketed placeholders [ ] with the specific details of the paper you are analyzing.
**Role:** Bibliometric Analyst and Scientific Reviewer.
**Task:** Conduct a credibility and pedigree audit of the following scientific paper.
**Paper Title:** [INSERT TITLE]
**DOI/Link:** [INSERT DOI OR LINK]
**Instructions:**
Execute a structured search to answer the four core queries below. For "High Impact," prioritize journals with an Impact Factor (IF) > 10 (e.g., Nature, Cell, Science, NEJM, The Lancet, Nature Aging, Cell Metabolism). Distinguish between verified facts and inferred data.
**1. First Author Analysis ([INSERT FIRST AUTHOR NAME])**
* **Publication History:** Search the author's Google Scholar or ResearchGate profile. Have they published as *First Author* or *Corresponding Author* in a High Impact journal prior to this paper? List specific citations.
* **Impact Assessment:** If no high-impact history exists, note the highest IF journal they have previously published in.
**2. First Author Pedigree (PhD Origin)**
* **Lineage:** Identify the laboratory and university where the First Author completed their PhD. Who was their Primary Investigator (PI)/Supervisor?
* **Lab Identity:** [Insert Name of PI if known, otherwise instruct AI to find it].
**3. Origin Lab Track Record (The PhD Lab)**
* **Lab Output:** Analyze the publication history of the First Author's PhD laboratory (the PI identified above) over the *last 10 years*.
* **High Impact Volume:** Estimate the volume of papers published by this specific lab in High Impact journals (IF > 10) during this decade.
* **Consistency:** Is this lab a consistent producer of top-tier research, or is high-impact output an anomaly?
**4. Last Author Analysis ([INSERT LAST AUTHOR NAME])**
* **Seniority & consistency:** The Last Author is typically the Senior Investigator. Search their publication record for the last 10 years.
* **High Impact Volume:** How many papers has this author published in High Impact journals in the last decade?
* **Reputation Check:** Check for any retractions or significant corrections associated with this author in the Retraction Watch database.
**Output Format:**
Present findings in a concise Markup table followed by a summary of "Credibility Signals" (Green Flags) and "Risk Factors" (Red Flags).
The prompt above is structured to bypass general summaries and target specific proxies for scientific rigor. Here is the breakdown of why these metrics matter in the context of Biotech and Longevity due diligence.
If you need deeper scrutiny for investment or replication purposes, consider adding these two lines to the prompt:
Example of recent response on this paper: Distinct roles of urolithin A and spermidine in mitophagy and autophagy: implications for dietary supplementation
Credibility & Pedigree Audit
| Metric | Findings | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Journal Reputation | Nutrition Research Reviews (IF ~4.5). Reputable niche journal (Q1 Nutrition), but not “High Impact” (IF < 10). |
 Neutral |
| First Author Pedigree | Charles University (Regional Reputable). No top-tier postdoctoral training detected. |
Neutral |
| High Impact History | No history of publishing in Nature, Cell, Science, etc. for either primary author. |
 Risk Factor
|
| Conflict of Interest | CRITICAL: First Author owns “Minus Age” (Hackshot s.r.o.), a company selling the reviewed supplements. |
HIGH RISK
|
| Lab Track Record | Consistent mid-tier output. No history of elite-level mechanistic biology papers. |
Neutral |
Credibility Signals (Green Flags):
Risk Factors (Red Flags):
It’s a very good idea and I like the automatic bias assessment as shown in your UA example.
The UA papers remind me that we should also look at the clinical significance as in a lot of those papers they can find statistically significant effects but they are so small that they have no practical clinical effects. Like p < 0.001 and OR = 1.001.
Another kind of data to look at is the R2 coefficients of correlation as sometime there is a p < 0.05 but the R2 correlation is 0.2 which basically means there is only a weak correlation.
Ha, this is right up my ally!
Decades ago, when we first stopped getting real people on the phone when you called a company, I learned if the system heard a swear word, it was trained to realize you were mad and it would then immediately be sent to a live person… worked like a charm for a very long time. The polite people remained in voice prompt hell…
I think the approach you are using is sound. My Dad probably is on 10-20 papers/year, I’d guess; and for almost all of them is the last author; and yes, this insures quality, as does the institution; and possibly the volume/quality of publications more so focused on the last author (if that author is quite senior).
Very unfortunate example with David Sinclair. The consistently sloppy if not frankly deceptive work coming out of his lab in connection with resveratrol pretty much sealed his reputation as an unreliable huckster. George Church has a decent reputation, though was forced to retract some published work recently. Cynthia Kenyon is legit, OG researcher with a stellar lab. Meanwhile AI continues to unimpress, as usual… can’t win for losing.
Current paper analysis prompt:
Role: You are a Longevity Research Analyst and Science Journalist. Your audience consists of scientifically literate longevity biohackers, biotech investors, and clinicians.
Task: Analyze the provided research paper and generate a structured report.
Narrative: Write a 400 word summary. Focus on the “Big Idea.” Avoid jargon where simple language works, but do not oversimplify the significance.
• Context: Explicitly state the Institution, Country, and Journal Name.
• Impact Evaluation: State the Journal’s Impact Factor (JIF) or CiteScore. You must contextulize this number with a specific statement formatted as follows: “The impact score of this journal is [Insert Score], evaluated against a typical high-end range of [Insert Range, e.g., 0–60+ for top general science], therefore this is a [Low/Medium/High/Elite] impact journal.”
Part 2: The Biohacker Analysis (Style: Technical, Academic, Direct)
Part 3 Claims:
Instructions:
Extract Claims: Identify every specific biological, medical, or protocol claim made in the transcript.
Verify Externally: You must perform live searches for each claim. Do not rely on internal training data alone. Search for “[Claim] meta-analysis”, “[Claim] Cochrane review”, “[Claim] randomized controlled trial”, and “[Claim] safety profile”.
Assess Hierarchy of Evidence: Evaluate the support for each claim using this strict hierarchy:
Level A: Human Meta-analyses / Systematic Reviews (Gold Standard).
Level B: Human Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs).
Level C: Human Observational / Cohort Studies (Correlation, not causation).
Level D: Pre-clinical (Animal models, In vitro, Mechanistic speculation). Flag heavily if claim relies on this level.
Level E: Expert Opinion / Anecdote (Lowest quality).
Detect Translational Uncertainty: If a claim is based on mouse/worm/yeast data but presented as human advice, label this as a “Translational Gap.”
Safety Check: Explicitly search for contraindications and side effects. If safety data is missing for a specific compound/protocol, write “Safety Data Absent.”
Part 4: Actionable Intelligence (Structure: Bullet Points)
Actionable Intelligence (Deep Retrieval & Validation Mode) Instruction: For this section, you must perform external searches outside the provided text. Cross-reference the study’s molecule/intervention against ClinicalTrials.gov, DrugBank, and PubMed for safety data. Do not hallucinate safety; if data is absent, state “Data Absent.”
The Translational Protocol (Rigorous Extrapolation):
Biomarker Verification Panel:
Feasibility & ROI (Cost-Benefit Analysis):
Population Applicability:
Part 5: The Strategic FAQ
Instruction: For this section, you must perform external searches outside the provided text. Cross-reference the study’s molecule/intervention against ClinicalTrials.gov, DrugBank, and PubMed for safety data. Do not hallucinate safety; if data is absent, state “Data Absent.”
Output Constraints:
[Reasoning Framework: Probabilistic & Bayesian]
Acknowledge Uncertainty: Explicitly flag any claim that lacks verifying consensus. Do not state hypotheses as facts. Use “hedging” language appropriate to the evidence strength (e.g., “strongly suggests,” “preliminary data indicates,” “hypothetically”).
Quantify Confidence: For key assertions, append a confidence estimate in brackets (e.g., [Confidence: High/Medium/Low] or [Est. Probability: ~80%]).
Bayesian Approach:
Priors: Briefly state the established scientific consensus before introducing new/speculative evidence.
Update: Explain how new data modifies these priors (e.g., “This study increases the likelihood of X, but does not prove it”).
Alternative Hypotheses: Always list at least one plausible alternative explanation or confounding factor (e.g., “Reverse causality,” “Selection bias”).
Source Text/Link/attachment:
