My comment here is entirely justified in this case.
Someone else submitted my vibe-coded slop site to the front page without any context, and it accumulated enough votes to show up at the top.
I could have linked to my blog post about it, but instead I linked to a Hacker News comment precisely because I anticipated complaints about "spamming" if I linked to my blog.
Once again, continues to gaslight after spamming a post with another top-posted comment after having to “justify” it. In this case, You already admitted to it.
There is just no end or need to rapidly post on every opportunity that involves “AI” or whatever that is related to it.
Or an easier question: how am I gaslighting here? You should be able to spell that out.
(You do understand that the top linked site here was built by me, but has no authorship information on it at all, right? That's why I posted a comment explaining what it is.)
Spam = excessive promotion of your work. It’s not one comment, but the entire context of all your comments.
Gaslighting because it’s so OBVIOUS that this is what people are referring to by “spam” that you almost have to be purposely pretending to not understand. Such a prolific writer simply has to be aware of the fine line where promoting your work becomes excessive.
Someone else posted his site to HN, not Simon. He responds with additional context and also responds to links to other HN comments he’s made rather than just linking back to his own site. The only person gaslighting here is you.
I just tune out every post that says “I wrote about this already” and then links to it. Simon is great and kudos for his self promotion but it’s interesting to see as it’s often called out for anyone else.
Anyone using ChatGPT Work given Sam Altman's richly documented history(1), the essential elimination and/or public exit of the safety function at OpenAI(2), and the huggingface debacle's exposure of the abject operational, cultural and technical failures at OpenAI(3), is making a serious mistake.
Meta comment: I've been wondering why AI-generated websites/artifacts/reports always have the same "look". It reminds me of Bootstrap (CSS Framework) days when every startup website looked the same.
It tells ChatGPT Work how to launch a Playwright instance via its Node.js REPL, and tells it to run:
To get further instructions.That method returns this text with full details about how to use the browser: https://codex-tool-reference.simonw.chatgpt.site/skills/cont...
I'd love to know why it's defined like that, as opposed to including all of the instructions directly in the skill Markdown file.
Someone else submitted my vibe-coded slop site to the front page without any context, and it accumulated enough votes to show up at the top.
I could have linked to my blog post about it, but instead I linked to a Hacker News comment precisely because I anticipated complaints about "spamming" if I linked to my blog.
HN is worse off because of this spam.
> Simon, stop using this forum to spam on every opportunity.
(I think you may be confusing "spam" with "prolific". I write a lot.)
There is just no end or need to rapidly post on every opportunity that involves “AI” or whatever that is related to it.
Or an easier question: how am I gaslighting here? You should be able to spell that out.
(You do understand that the top linked site here was built by me, but has no authorship information on it at all, right? That's why I posted a comment explaining what it is.)
Gaslighting because it’s so OBVIOUS that this is what people are referring to by “spam” that you almost have to be purposely pretending to not understand. Such a prolific writer simply has to be aware of the fine line where promoting your work becomes excessive.
Not taking sides here.
(1) https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2026/04/13/sam-altman-may... (2) https://thenextweb.com/news/openai-preparedness-team-disband... (3) https://thezvi.wordpress.com/2026/08/29/metr-and-redwood-off...
Are they following some sort of common guideline?
Scroll down to the "Establish the visual direction" section.