Many of your articles just go along with whatever another company/person says without questioning it, to the point that I don't find those articles valuable at all.
I don't think I am alone, based on criticism in the HN discussions under those articles.
And I don't expect you or anyone to be an investigative journalist, but there is a difference between writing blog articles vs being a megaphone.
That may be true for many of the short form pieces - there's only so much you can say in a couple of paragraphs - but I try to inject a whole lot of additional commentary, often critical, in my longer form work.
- https://simonwillison.net/2026/Apr/23/gpt-5-5/ pointed out that, while OpenAI had said that GPT-5.5 was not yet available via their API for safety reasons, they also recently blessed accessing their unofficial Codex-only API as part of their attempt to tempt OpenClaw customers away from Anthropic... which meant they DID offer and approve of an API for GPT-5.5 after all
- https://simonwillison.net/2026/Apr/21/gpt-image-2/ pointed out how much worse the previously celebrated Nano Banana is as at image generation compared to ChatGPT Images 2.0, while also showing ChatGPT Images 2.0 will cheat and add a raccoon if you ask it to solve its own puzzle.
- https://simonwillison.net/2026/Apr/18/opus-system-prompt/ was the first coverage I saw anywhere of the new eating disorder section of the Claude system prompt. I also repeated my criticism there of Anthropic's decision not to publish their tool descriptions even when they claim to have an openly documented system prompt.
- https://simonwillison.net/2026/Apr/16/qwen-beats-opus/ demonstrated the new Opus 4.7 drawing a worse pelican than an open weights model I can run on my laptop. (Though to be fair I manly concluded this as evidence that my own "benchmark" is of very limited value.)
All of those examples are from the past three weeks.
I don't think I'm an uncritical megaphone for the messages these companies want to convey.
