Has there ever been any other topic that was not only the subject of the majority of submissions, but also had a subset of users repeatedly butting into completely unrelated discussions to go "b-but what about <thing>? we need to talk about <thing> here too! how can I relate this to <thing>? look at my <thing> product!"?

You can't just roll in to a random post to tell people about your revolutionary new AI agent for the 50th time this week and expect them not to be at least mildly annoyed.

▲

stavros 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I'm with you, but he wasn't telling us about his agent, he was saying "this is a cool technology and I've been wanting to use it to make a thing". The thing just happened to be LLM-adjacent.

▲

bakugo 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Almost all of his comments "just happen" to be LLM-adjacent. At some point it stops "just happening" and it becomes clear that certain people (or their AI bots) are frequenting discussion spaces for the sole purpose of seeking out opportunities to bring up AI and self-promote.

▲

stavros 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Simon has been here since way before LLMs were a thing, and it's fairly obvious (to me, at least) that he's genuinely excited about LLMs, he's not just spamming sales or anything.

▲

yokoprime an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

You are not reading his material i suppose? It’s really one of the better sources for informed takes on llms

	▲	bakugo an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I just went and read one of his recent posts at: https://simonwillison.net/2026/Mar/5/chardet/ The entire thing is just quotes and a retelling of events. The closest thing to a "take" I could find is this: > I have no idea how this one is going to play out. I’m personally leaning towards the idea that the rewrite is legitimate, but the arguments on both sides of this are entirely credible. Which effectively says nothing. It doesn't add anything the discussion around the topic, informed or not, and the post doesn't seem to serve any purpose beyond existing as an excuse to be linked to and siphon attention away from the original discussion (I wonder if the sponsor banner at the top of the blog could have something to do with that...?) This seems to be a pattern, at least in recent times. Here's another egregious example: https://simonwillison.net/2026/Feb/21/claws/ Literally just a quote from his fellow member of the "never stops talking about AI" club, Karpathy. No substance, no elaboration, just something someone else said or did pasted on his blog followed by a short agreement. Again, doesn't add anything or serve any real purpose, but was for some reason submitted to HN instead of the original tweet[1]. The original link was eventually submitted a whole 9 hours later[2] and superseded it, but of course, it still had to contain a link to Simon's blog in the body, too. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47099160 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47096253