6 ms·

[flagged]

by dcreater 7mo ago

[flagged]

thedevilslawyer 7mo ago
[flagged]
- blibble 7mo ago
  Simon Willison claims to be an "Independent AI researcher"[1]: but then at the top of this article: > Sponsored by: Teleport — Secure, Govern, and Operate AI at Engineering Scale. Learn more not exactly a coherent narrative, is it? [1]: https://bsky.app/profile/simonwillison.net https://bsky.app/profile/simonwillison.net
  - simonw 7mo ago
    I wrote a little note about that here - it even opens with "I value my credibility as an independent voice" https://simonwillison.net/2026/Feb/19/sponsorship/ https://simonwillison.net/2026/Feb/19/sponsorship/ I get (incorrectly) accused of writing undisclosed sponsored content pretty often, so I'm actually hoping that the visible sponsor banner will help people resist that temptation because they can see that the sponsorship is visible, not hidden.
    - blibble 7mo ago
      > I value my credibility as an independent voice not enough to not take their money though? insipid
      - simonw 7mo ago
        I'm currently planning to avoid sponsorship from companies that I regularly write about for that reason.
        blibble 7mo ago
        [flagged]
        simonw 7mo ago
        You're welcome to stop reading me if you think my ethics are irreversibly corrupted and you can no longer trust my writing. Thankfully most of my readers are better at evaluating their information sources than you are.
        blibble 7mo ago
        [flagged]
        akssassin907 7mo ago
        That's actually a cleaner editorial standard than most publications follow. The major risk in tech journalism isn't disclosed sponsorships — it's the undisclosed access journalism where coverage tone shifts to maintain relationships. Visible banners beat invisible influence every time.
  - 4opuop 7mo ago
    [dead]
  - usef- 7mo ago
    Honestly, after his ~23 years of writing online I think he's fairly earned the title as an independent researcher. He added those sponsorships three days ago; perhaps wait to raise your alarm bells until he actually writes about a sponsor.
simonw 7mo ago
You know I helped popularize "slop"? I get credited by Wikipedia as an "early champion": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_slop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_slop
misweencoded 7mo ago
[flagged]
dang 7mo ago
Would you please not cross into personal attacks on HN? It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. We've already had to ask you this, and we end up banning accounts that keep breaking the site guidelines this way. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46715512 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46715512 (Jan 2026) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45022369 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45022369 (Aug 2025) If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
- dcreater 7mo ago
  I think my comment was a dissenting opinion, not a personal attack. Its troubling that such a comment would be considered crossing a line
  - dang 7mo ago
    Telling someone they are not only "introducing more slop into the language" but even "trying to introduce more slop into the language" is clearly pejorative. Also, "for the love of God" is an internet snark trope which both signals and amplifies negativity. You can think of it as a minus sign, or perhaps a triple minus sign. I would not classify this putdown as a "dissenting opinion" because if you take away the pejoratives and the signals of negative sentiment, there is little if any information left.
    - kethinov 7mo ago
      I'm broadly with you on disliking OP's comment because it is needlessly negative, but I don't think it quite rises to the standard of a personal attack. Accusing the author of introducing slop into the language by coining (or using) a new term is a criticism of the author's work, not the author himself. It's akin to saying, "Your work has a negative side effect which I don't like." Which clearly would've been the nicer way to say it.
      - 7mo ago

[flagged]

thedevilslawyer 7mo ago

[flagged]

blibble 7mo ago
Simon Willison claims to be an "Independent AI researcher"[1]: but then at the top of this article: > Sponsored by: Teleport — Secure, Govern, and Operate AI at Engineering Scale. Learn more not exactly a coherent narrative, is it? [1]: https://bsky.app/profile/simonwillison.net https://bsky.app/profile/simonwillison.net
- simonw 7mo ago
  I wrote a little note about that here - it even opens with "I value my credibility as an independent voice" https://simonwillison.net/2026/Feb/19/sponsorship/ https://simonwillison.net/2026/Feb/19/sponsorship/ I get (incorrectly) accused of writing undisclosed sponsored content pretty often, so I'm actually hoping that the visible sponsor banner will help people resist that temptation because they can see that the sponsorship is visible, not hidden.
  - blibble 7mo ago
    > I value my credibility as an independent voice not enough to not take their money though? insipid
    - simonw 7mo ago
      I'm currently planning to avoid sponsorship from companies that I regularly write about for that reason.
      - blibble 7mo ago
        [flagged]
        simonw 7mo ago
        You're welcome to stop reading me if you think my ethics are irreversibly corrupted and you can no longer trust my writing. Thankfully most of my readers are better at evaluating their information sources than you are.
        blibble 7mo ago
        [flagged]
      - akssassin907 7mo ago
        That's actually a cleaner editorial standard than most publications follow. The major risk in tech journalism isn't disclosed sponsorships — it's the undisclosed access journalism where coverage tone shifts to maintain relationships. Visible banners beat invisible influence every time.
- 4opuop 7mo ago
  [dead]
- usef- 7mo ago
  Honestly, after his ~23 years of writing online I think he's fairly earned the title as an independent researcher. He added those sponsorships three days ago; perhaps wait to raise your alarm bells until he actually writes about a sponsor.

simonw 7mo ago

You know I helped popularize "slop"? I get credited by Wikipedia as an "early champion": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_slop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_slop

misweencoded 7mo ago

[flagged]

dang 7mo ago

Would you please not cross into personal attacks on HN? It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. We've already had to ask you this, and we end up banning accounts that keep breaking the site guidelines this way. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46715512 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46715512 (Jan 2026) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45022369 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45022369 (Aug 2025) If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.

dcreater 7mo ago
I think my comment was a dissenting opinion, not a personal attack. Its troubling that such a comment would be considered crossing a line
- dang 7mo ago
  Telling someone they are not only "introducing more slop into the language" but even "trying to introduce more slop into the language" is clearly pejorative. Also, "for the love of God" is an internet snark trope which both signals and amplifies negativity. You can think of it as a minus sign, or perhaps a triple minus sign. I would not classify this putdown as a "dissenting opinion" because if you take away the pejoratives and the signals of negative sentiment, there is little if any information left.
  - kethinov 7mo ago
    I'm broadly with you on disliking OP's comment because it is needlessly negative, but I don't think it quite rises to the standard of a personal attack. Accusing the author of introducing slop into the language by coining (or using) a new term is a criticism of the author's work, not the author himself. It's akin to saying, "Your work has a negative side effect which I don't like." Which clearly would've been the nicer way to say it.
    - 7mo ago