For being one of the biggest AI boosters on HN, you'd really think you could make a stronger case than "Apollo is bad because they observed and reported on a fact". It wasn't a prediction, so there's nothing to "hold up very well".
I've seen dozens of posts/top comments in the last few years dunking on "AI skeptics" for statements that didn't even vaguely resemble an actual prediction.
Like the front page post from Karpathy which got 600+ upvotes by throwing an AI model at old Hacker News comments without any human vetting to score "predictions". And upon further inspection included a bunch of unambiguously factual statements of the present or conditional if-then logic about the future which when glossed over for convenience become "failed" predictions.
The person whose comment we're discussing literally has a sponsorship from an AI company on top of his blog that just raised 50 million bucks lol
I think you are either unfamiliar with my work or you have terrible judgement.
Your blog has been in my RSS feed for a long time, even before you became AI-pilled.
For at least a year or so, I’ve found very little substance in your writing. It’s mostly surface-level material, resembling the fluff we see on startup company blogs.
Even though I don’t use your relatively recent open-source projects, I respect the effort and contribution. But that’s not what I’m talking about. So, it’s not about your work in general.
Your blog and website content lack depth, originality, and sincerity. You’re trying to sell something, and I’m not a buyer. Still, I wouldn’t go so far as to say that people who buy your stuff have terrible judgment.
You cover AI extensively, but your style and apparent depth of knowledge on the subject (at least judging by your content) remind me of those “experts” invited onto news shows who have no solid credentials but have somehow figured out how to get airtime through social skills, connections, or networking. They present surface-level information riddled with logical and intellectual holes, yet manage to sound convincing to people with limited or no background in the subject.
Anyway, good luck with your content machine.
https://simonwillison.net/2026/Nov/3/qwen-can-interpret-mode... from this morning was the first report I've seen of Qwen 3.8 27B doing that weights interpretation trick.
Is it possible you're confusing my link blog with my longer form pieces? I wrote more about my link blogging strategy here: https://simonwillison.net/2024/Dec/22/link-blog/
My long form pieces are much more likely to "add something you couldn't find anywhere else": https://simonwillison.net/entries/