3 ms·

Can you make an ethical declaration here, stating whether or not you are being compensated by them? Their page looks to me like a lot of invented jargon and pu

by belter 8mo ago

Can you make an ethical declaration here, stating whether or not you are being compensated by them? Their page looks to me like a lot of invented jargon and pure narrative. Every technique is just a renamed existing concept. Digital Twin Universe is mocks, Gene Transfusion is reading reference code, Semport is transpilation. The site has zero benchmarks, zero defect rates, zero cost comparisons, zero production outcomes. The only metric offered is "spend more money". Anyone working honestly in this space knows 90% of agent projects are failing. The main page of HN now has three to four posts daily with no substance, just Agentic AI marketing dressed as engineering insight. With Google, Microsoft, and others spending $600 billion over the next year on AI, and panicking to get a return on that Capex....and with them now paying influencers over $600K [1] to manufacture AI enthusiasm to justify this infrastructure spend, I won't engage with any AI thought leadership that lacks a clear disclosure of financial interests and reproducible claims backed by actual data. Show me a real production feature built entirely by agents with full traces, defect rates, and honest failure accounting. Or stop inventing vocabulary and posting vibes charts. [1] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46925821 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46925821

AstroBen 8mo ago
Simon does have a disclosure on his site about not being compensated for anything: https://simonwillison.net/about/#disclosures https://simonwillison.net/about/#disclosures
- belter 8mo ago
  Thank you. That link discloses there was at least one instance where OpenAI paid for his time. I will reformulate my question to ask instead if the page is still 100% correct or needs an update?
  - simonw 8mo ago
    It's current. I last modified it in October: https://github.com/simonw/simonwillisonblog/commits/main/templates/about.html https://github.com/simonw/simonwillisonblog/commits/main/tem...
    - belter 8mo ago
      Thank you. Your disclosure page is better than all other AI commentators as most disclose nothing at all. You do disclose an OpenAI payment, Microsoft travel, and the existence of preview relationships. However I would argue there are significant gaps: - You do not name your consulting clients. You admit to do ad-hoc consulting and training for unnamed companies while writing daily about AI products. Those client names are material information. - You have non payments that have monetary value. Free API credits, and weeks of early preview access, flights, hotels, dinners, and event invitations are all compensation. Do you keep those credits? - The "I have not accepted payments from LLM vendors" could mean receiving things worth thousands of dollars. Please note I am not saying you did. - You have a structural conflict. Your favorable coverage will mean preview access, then exclusive content then traffic, then sponsors, then consulting clients. - You appeared in an OpenAI promotional video for GPT-5 and were paid for it. This is influencer marketing by any definition. - Your quotes are used as third-party validation in press coverage of AI product launches. This is a PR function with commercial value to these companies. The FTC revised Endorsement Guides explicitly apply to bloggers, not just social media influencers. The FTC defines material connection to include not only cash payments but also free products, early access to a product, event invitations, and appearing in promotional media all of which would seem to apply here. They also say in the FTC own "Disclosures 101" guide that states [2]: "...Disclosures are likely to be missed if they appear only on an ABOUT ME or profile page, at the end of posts or videos, or anywhere that requires a person to click MORE." https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/disclosures-101-social-media-influencers https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/disclosures-... [2] - https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/plain-language/1001a-influencer-guide-508_1.pdf https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/plain-language/10... I would argue an ecosystem of free access, preview privileges, promotional video appearances, API credits, and undisclosed consulting does constitute a financial relationship that should be more transparently disclosed than "I have not accepted payments from LLM vendors."
      - blibble 8mo ago
        Simon Willison has publicly posted many times that he finds it frustrating that people call him a shill for the AI industry I don't think it's unreasonable to say that your enumerated list would be considered beyond simply being enthusiastic about a new technology
- sjjsjdk 8mo ago
  [dead]
coder23853 8mo ago
> Every technique is just a renamed existing concept. Digital Twin Universe is mocks, Gene Transfusion is reading reference code, Semport is transpilation. The site has zero benchmarks, zero defect rates, zero cost comparisons, zero production outcomes. The only metric offered is "spend more money". Repeating for emphasis, because this is the VERY obvious question anyone with a shred of curiosity would be asking not just about this submission but about what is CONSTANTLY on the frontpage these days. There could be a very simple 5 question questionnaire that could eliminate 90+% of AI coding requests before they start: - Is this a small wrapper around just querying an existing LLM - Does a brief summary of this searched with "site:github" already return dozens or hundreds of results? - Is this a classic scam (pump&dump, etc) redone using "AI" - Is this needless churn between already high level abstractions of technology (dashboard of dashboards, yaml to json, python to java script, automation of automation framework)

by belter 8mo ago

AstroBen 8mo ago

Simon does have a disclosure on his site about not being compensated for anything: https://simonwillison.net/about/#disclosures https://simonwillison.net/about/#disclosures

belter 8mo ago
Thank you. That link discloses there was at least one instance where OpenAI paid for his time. I will reformulate my question to ask instead if the page is still 100% correct or needs an update?
- simonw 8mo ago
  It's current. I last modified it in October: https://github.com/simonw/simonwillisonblog/commits/main/templates/about.html https://github.com/simonw/simonwillisonblog/commits/main/tem...
  - belter 8mo ago
    Thank you. Your disclosure page is better than all other AI commentators as most disclose nothing at all. You do disclose an OpenAI payment, Microsoft travel, and the existence of preview relationships. However I would argue there are significant gaps: - You do not name your consulting clients. You admit to do ad-hoc consulting and training for unnamed companies while writing daily about AI products. Those client names are material information. - You have non payments that have monetary value. Free API credits, and weeks of early preview access, flights, hotels, dinners, and event invitations are all compensation. Do you keep those credits? - The "I have not accepted payments from LLM vendors" could mean receiving things worth thousands of dollars. Please note I am not saying you did. - You have a structural conflict. Your favorable coverage will mean preview access, then exclusive content then traffic, then sponsors, then consulting clients. - You appeared in an OpenAI promotional video for GPT-5 and were paid for it. This is influencer marketing by any definition. - Your quotes are used as third-party validation in press coverage of AI product launches. This is a PR function with commercial value to these companies. The FTC revised Endorsement Guides explicitly apply to bloggers, not just social media influencers. The FTC defines material connection to include not only cash payments but also free products, early access to a product, event invitations, and appearing in promotional media all of which would seem to apply here. They also say in the FTC own "Disclosures 101" guide that states [2]: "...Disclosures are likely to be missed if they appear only on an ABOUT ME or profile page, at the end of posts or videos, or anywhere that requires a person to click MORE." https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/disclosures-101-social-media-influencers https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/disclosures-... [2] - https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/plain-language/1001a-influencer-guide-508_1.pdf https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/plain-language/10... I would argue an ecosystem of free access, preview privileges, promotional video appearances, API credits, and undisclosed consulting does constitute a financial relationship that should be more transparently disclosed than "I have not accepted payments from LLM vendors."
    - blibble 8mo ago
      Simon Willison has publicly posted many times that he finds it frustrating that people call him a shill for the AI industry I don't think it's unreasonable to say that your enumerated list would be considered beyond simply being enthusiastic about a new technology
sjjsjdk 8mo ago
[dead]

coder23853 8mo ago

> Every technique is just a renamed existing concept. Digital Twin Universe is mocks, Gene Transfusion is reading reference code, Semport is transpilation. The site has zero benchmarks, zero defect rates, zero cost comparisons, zero production outcomes. The only metric offered is "spend more money". Repeating for emphasis, because this is the VERY obvious question anyone with a shred of curiosity would be asking not just about this submission but about what is CONSTANTLY on the frontpage these days. There could be a very simple 5 question questionnaire that could eliminate 90+% of AI coding requests before they start: - Is this a small wrapper around just querying an existing LLM - Does a brief summary of this searched with "site:github" already return dozens or hundreds of results? - Is this a classic scam (pump&dump, etc) redone using "AI" - Is this needless churn between already high level abstractions of technology (dashboard of dashboards, yaml to json, python to java script, automation of automation framework)