Every so often, the SEO world finds a new file format or toy that’s supposedly going to “change everything.”
First it was AMP.
Then JSON-LD became the magic cure for all ranking problems.
Then everyone thought they needed 47 different sitemaps because someone on LinkedIn said so.
And now we have llms.txt, a file that’s suddenly being treated like the secret handshake for getting more AI traffic or citations from tools like ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, or Perplexity.
Anyone who follows me, knows I have been railing against this idea since it was introduced, largely because, if it is ever adopted as a standard protocol, it is only beneficial to LLMs, not website owners. Also, there is a ton of misinformation about them floating around.
I’ve already seen people calling it “robots.txt for AI,” which is… optimistic.
The truth is simpler and far less dramatic:
llms.txt is optional metadata. It’s not a protocol, not a directive, and definitely not a ranking factor for AI assistants.
That doesn’t mean it’s useless, although it’s damn close.
But it does mean most of the claims being made about it right now are based on hype, not reality.
In this note, I want to cut through the noise and break down the biggest myths around llms.txt, what it can do, what it can’t do, and why adding this file won’t magically improve how AI models understand, cite, or interact with your site.
If you feel pressure to rush and create one because “everyone else is doing it,” relax.
Let’s walk through what llms.txt actually is, and what the industry is getting wrong about it.
What an LLMs.txt File Actually Is
Before we get into the myths, we need to be clear about what llms.txt actually is, and more importantly, what it isn’t.
An llms.txt file is simply an optional, human-created metadata file you can place at:
yourdomain.com/llms.txtIts purpose is to give AI assistants a curated list of your most important or authoritative URLs, plus any additional notes you want them to consider.
That’s it.
It’s not a technical standard.
It’s not a protocol.
It’s not required.
It’s not enforced.
And it’s not universally adopted by major LLM providers.
Think of it like a digital “resource list” you’re handing to an AI assistant:
- “Here are the pages I believe represent my site best.”
- “Here are preferred versions of certain URLs.”
- “Here are documents or sources that matter most.”
- “Here are things you should avoid referencing.” (Optional)
But, and this is the part the hype conveniently ignores, LLMs are under no obligation to read it, use it, or even acknowledge it.
Some models pull from:
- licensed datasets
- curated sources
- structured knowledge graphs
- human-approved content
- API-connected retrieval systems
- or no live web crawling at all
The llms.txt file doesn’t override any of that.
So yes, you can create one.
But no, it doesn’t give you control over how LLMs ingest, evaluate, or reference your content.
If robots.txt is a rulebook, llms.txt is more like a suggested reading list, and there’s no guarantee anyone will read it.
Myth #1: “LLMs.txt acts like robots.txt or replaces it.”
This is the biggest and most persistent myth, and the easiest one to debunk.
A surprising number of people are treating llms.txt like it’s robots.txt for AI assistants.
It isn’t.
Not even close.
Here’s the reality:
Robots.txt is an actual web standard.
- It controls what crawlers can and cannot access.
- Googlebot, Bingbot, and other search crawlers are designed to honor it.
- It’s been part of the web ecosystem since the mid-90s.
- There’s a formal specification, long-standing conventions, and widespread compliance.
LLMs.txt has none of that.
- It does not control crawling.
- It does not block access.
- It does not enforce anything.
- It does not override robots.txt.
- It does not serve as a replacement for sitemap.xml.
Some LLMs don’t crawl the web at all.
Some use selective crawling with their own rules.
Some rely on licensed datasets.
Some rely on retrieval systems that have nothing to do with direct crawling.
So the idea that llms.txt will let you “approve” or “deny” access to AI assistants is pure fiction.
At best, llms.txt gives LLMs a hint about where your important content lives.
But it does not:
- control access
- govern crawling
- influence indexing
- replace robots.txt or sitemap.xml
- function like a real protocol
If robots.txt is a rulebook, llms.txt is a suggestion written on a napkin.
Treat it that way.
Myth #2: “LLMs.txt helps LLMs understand what your pages are about.”
If you’ve heard people say this, it probably came packaged with the idea that llms.txt is some kind of semantic cheat code, a way to “explain” your content directly to AI models.
That’s not how any of this works.
LLMs do not rely on an external text file to understand what a webpage is about.
They understand your content by reading your actual content. The same way humans do.
They look at:
- your headings
- your structure
- your copy
- your entities
- your context
- your internal linking
- your schema markup
- your surrounding topics
They interpret patterns, relationships, and signals inside the page, not from a metadata file sitting at the root of your domain.
If your content is unclear, thin, or poorly structured, llms.txt is not going to fix that.
If anything, it’s a sign of a deeper issue:
If you need an llms.txt file to explain your content to an LLM, there is something fundamentally wrong with your content.
No LLM is going to read your llms.txt file and suddenly discover clarity, expertise, or topical depth that isn’t already reflected in the page itself.
Good content explains itself.
LLMs.txt doesn’t “enhance understanding.”
It doesn’t override what’s on the page.
It doesn’t act as a semantic cheat sheet.
It’s a reading list, not a teacher.
Myth #3: “LLMs.txt influences crawling or indexing by AI models.”
A lot of people assume llms.txt plays a role in how AI models crawl or index the web, as if adding this file will help an LLM find your content more often or include more of your pages in its “index.”
That’s not how LLMs work.
LLMs don’t crawl like search engines.
Googlebot crawls URLs.
Bingbot crawls URLs.
Perplexity’s crawler crawls URLs.
But LLMs themselves don’t run their own traditional web crawlers to build a searchable index of pages.
Instead, most rely on:
- licensed datasets
- curated web snapshots
- content partnerships
- retrieval plugins/tools
- structured sources
- their internal training corpus
- sometimes no live crawling at all
So there’s no “index” in the search engine sense. Nothing you can influence with directives, hints, or structured lists.
And llms.txt is not a crawling protocol.
It doesn’t control:
- what gets crawled
- how often it gets crawled
- how deep a crawler goes
- which pages get included in a dataset
- which pages get excluded
It’s not part of any standardized crawling pipeline.
It doesn’t talk to a crawler.
It doesn’t function like robots.txt.
It doesn’t work like sitemap.xml.
If a company’s crawler happens to look for llms.txt, it might use it as optional metadata, but there is no guarantee and no enforcement.
There is zero evidence llms.txt affects dataset selection.
No major LLM provider has claimed that llms.txt influences:
- training inclusion
- citation likelihood
- answer retrieval
- response ranking
It doesn’t change how or whether an AI model accesses your pages.
To put it simply:
LLMs don’t index the web the way Google does, so llms.txt can’t influence indexing, because there is no indexing to influence.
Myth #4: “Adding an llms.txt file increases your chances of being cited in AI answers.”
This is the claim I see spreading the fastest, and it’s also the one with the least evidence behind it.
The idea is that if you publish an llms.txt file, LLMs like ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Perplexity, or Copilot will suddenly:
- cite your site more
- quote your content more
- pull more data from your pages
- treat your site as a “preferred source”
It sounds nice.
It’s also completely unproven.
LLMs do not use llms.txt as a ranking or citation signal.
No major LLM provider has said that llms.txt:
- increases source credibility
- boosts retrieval likelihood
- affects citation frequency
- influences answer generation
- elevates your site over others
- serves as a “priority list” for sourcing
We have zero public documentation supporting this idea.
What actually determines citation likelihood?
Every major LLM leans on:
- licensed datasets
- trusted publications
- high-authority domains
- curated or approved web sources
- clean, structured content
- entity-level authority
- retrieval systems with their own ranking logic
- and of course… fucking Reddit.
Not on an optional text file sitting at your domain root.
This myth exists because people want a shortcut.
Everyone wants a lever they can pull to improve visibility in AI answers.
LLMs.txt feels like a cheat code, a quick way to become “AI-friendly.”
But it doesn’t work that way.
If you want more citations from LLMs, you need:
- better content
- stronger entities
- rock-solid clarity
- consistent topical authority
- reliable factual accuracy
- and structure that retrieval systems love
LLMs.txt doesn’t do any of that.
The bottom line:
LLMs cite you because your content is good and referenced by other sources, not because you created a metadata file suggesting that it is.
Myth #5: “LLMs.txt is necessary for AI visibility.”
This is the fear-based version of the llms.txt hype:
“If I don’t create this file, my site won’t show up in AI answers.”
Or worse:
“All my competitors are adding one… if I don’t, I’ll be left behind.”
None of that is true.
Most highly cited sources don’t use llms.txt at all.
Look at the types of sites LLMs cite most often:
- Wikipedia
- government sites
- university sites
- major publishers
- medical authorities
- tech documentation
- public knowledge bases
The vast majority of them (as in 99.9999% of them) do not have an llms.txt file.
And yet LLMs reference them constantly.
Why?
Because their content itself is what makes them reliable.
AI visibility comes from authority, not a text file.
If you want more representation in AI answers, focus on:
- clear, well-structured content
- factual accuracy
- stable entities
- strong internal linking
- topical clusters
- unambiguous expertise
- well-defined page purpose
- being cited by other sources
These are the signals retrieval systems and LLMs latch onto.
Not llms.txt.
LLMs.txt is optional, not required, not foundational, not a standard.
It doesn’t function like:
- robots.txt
- XML sitemaps
- schema
- search engine directives
- crawl-control mechanisms
- ranking factors
You don’t lose anything by not having one.
Can you add one? Sure.
Do you need one? No.
Will it materially change your AI visibility? Not at all.
Treat llms.txt as a convenience feature, not a requirement, and definitely not a competitive differentiator.
Should You Use an LLMs.txt File?
By now the picture should be clear:
An llms.txt file isn’t harmful, but it’s also not meaningful.
You don’t need one to:
- show up in AI answers
- improve how LLMs interpret your content
- get cited more often
- influence crawling
- increase trust
- improve rankings anywhere
- communicate importance or relevance
LLMs don’t use llms.txt as a standard.
Most don’t look for it at all.
Some don’t crawl the web in the traditional sense.
Others rely almost entirely on curated datasets that a metadata file won’t touch.
So the real question isn’t:
“Should I add an llms.txt file?”
It’s:
“Will adding an llms.txt file change anything that matters?”
Right now, the honest answer is:
No. Probably not.
If you want to add one because it’s easy and takes 60 seconds, go for it.
If you want to add one because a blog post said it’s “the future of AI optimization,” skip it.
Nothing about llms.txt solves the real issues behind weak LLM visibility:
- unclear content
- lack of topical depth
- missing entities
- poor structure
- outdated or inaccurate information
- weak internal linking
- no real authority in your niche
Fix those, and LLMs will reference your content more often naturally.
Ignore those, and llms.txt won’t save you.
Right now, llms.txt is more of a novelty than a necessity, something fun to tinker with, not something to build strategy around.
Summary / Key Takeaways
LLMs.txt is the latest example of the SEO industry grabbing onto something new and immediately overestimating its importance. The reality is far less dramatic.
Here’s what you should take away:
- LLMs.txt is not robots.txt.
It doesn’t control crawling, access, or behavior. - It does not help LLMs “understand” your pages.
If the content itself isn’t clear enough, no external text file will fix that. - It does not influence crawling or indexing.
LLMs don’t use the web like search engines do. - It does not increase your chances of being cited in AI answers.
Citations come from authority, clarity, and factual strength, not metadata. - It is not necessary for AI visibility.
Most highly cited sites don’t use llms.txt at all.
The people who get cited most by AI aren’t the ones playing with metadata files. They’re the ones who consistently publish clear, structured, accurate, useful content that LLMs can understand on its own.
If you want to add an llms.txt file because you’re curious, fine.
But if you’re hoping it will meaningfully change how AI models treat your content, it won’t.
Fix your content. Build real topical authority. Strengthen your internal links.
Those are the levers that matter.
Everything you hear about llms.txt files is just noise.
Your content is the signal.
