Simon Willison’s Weblog

Introducing EmbeddingGemma. Brand new open weights (under the slightly janky Gemma license) 308M parameter embedding model from Google:

Based on the Gemma 3 architecture, EmbeddingGemma is trained on 100+ languages and is small enough to run on less than 200MB of RAM with quantization.

It's available via sentence-transformers, llama.cpp, MLX, Ollama, LMStudio and more.

As usual for these smaller models there's a Transformers.js demo (via) that runs directly in the browser (in Chrome variants) - Semantic Galaxy loads a ~400MB model and then lets you run embeddings against hundreds of text sentences, map them in a 2D space and run similarity searches to zoom to points within that space.

# 4th September 2025, 10:27 pm / embeddings, google, ai, gemma, transformers-js

Beyond Vibe Coding. Back in May I wrote Two publishers and three authors fail to understand what “vibe coding” means where I called out the authors of two forthcoming books on "vibe coding" for abusing that term to refer to all forms of AI-assisted development, when Not all AI-assisted programming is vibe coding based on the original Karpathy definition.

I'll be honest: I don't feel great about that post. I made an example of those two books to push my own agenda of encouraging "vibe coding" to avoid semantic diffusion but it felt (and feels) a bit mean.

... but maybe it had an effect? I recently spotted that Addy Osmani's book "Vibe Coding: The Future of Programming" has a new title, it's now called "Beyond Vibe Coding: From Coder to AI-Era Developer".

This title is so much better. Setting aside my earlier opinions, this positioning as a book to help people go beyond vibe coding and use LLMs as part of a professional engineering practice is a really great hook!

From Addy's new description of the book:

Vibe coding was never meant to describe all AI-assisted coding. It's a specific approach where you don't read the AI's code before running it. There's much more to consider beyond the prototype for production systems. [...]

AI-assisted engineering is a more structured approach that combines the creativity of vibe coding with the rigor of traditional engineering practices. It involves specs, rigor and emphasizes collaboration between human developers and AI tools, ensuring that the final product is not only functional but also maintainable and secure.

Amazon lists it as releasing on September 23rd. I'm looking forward to it.

# 4th September 2025, 8:58 pm / addy-osmani, vibe-coding, oreilly, ai-assisted-programming, generative-ai, ai, llms, books

Rich Pixels. Neat Python library by Darren Burns adding pixel image support to the Rich terminal library, using tricks to render an image using full or half-height colored blocks.

Here's the key trick - it renders Unicode ▄ (U+2584, "lower half block") characters after setting a foreground and background color for the two pixels it needs to display.

I got GPT-5 to vibe code up a show_image.py terminal command which resizes the provided image to fit the width and height of the current terminal and displays it using Rich Pixels. That script is here, you can run it with uv like this:

uv run https://tools.simonwillison.net/python/show_image.py \
  image.jpg

Here's what I got when I ran it against my V&A East Storehouse photo from this post:

# 2nd September 2025, 11:05 am / uv, ai, llms, vibe-coding, gpt-5, python, generative-ai, cli, ascii-art, rich

Introducing gpt-realtime. Released a few days ago (August 28th), gpt-realtime is OpenAI's new "most advanced speech-to-speech model". It looks like this is a replacement for the older gpt-4o-realtime-preview model that was released last October.

This is a slightly confusing release. The previous realtime model was clearly described as a variant of GPT-4o, sharing the same October 2023 training cut-off date as that model.

I had expected that gpt-realtime might be a GPT-5 relative, but its training date is still October 2023 whereas GPT-5 is September 2024.

gpt-realtime also shares the relatively low 32,000 context token and 4,096 maximum output token limits of gpt-4o-realtime-preview.

The only reference I found to GPT-5 in the documentation for the new model was a note saying "Ambiguity and conflicting instructions degrade performance, similar to GPT-5."

The usage tips for gpt-realtime have a few surprises:

Iterate relentlessly. Small wording changes can make or break behavior.

Example: Swapping “inaudible” → “unintelligible” improved noisy input handling. [...]

Convert non-text rules to text: The model responds better to clearly written text.

Example: Instead of writing, "IF x > 3 THEN ESCALATE", write, "IF MORE THAN THREE FAILURES THEN ESCALATE."

There are a whole lot more prompting tips in the new Realtime Prompting Guide.

OpenAI list several key improvements to gpt-realtime including the ability to configure it with a list of MCP servers, "better instruction following" and the ability to send it images.

My biggest confusion came from the pricing page, which lists separate pricing for using the Realtime API with gpt-realtime and GPT-4o mini. This suggests to me that the old gpt-4o-mini-realtime-preview model is still available, despite it no longer being listed on the OpenAI models page.

gpt-4o-mini-realtime-preview is a lot cheaper:

The mini model also has a much longer 128,000 token context window.

Update: Turns out that was a mistake in the documentation, that mini model has a 16,000 token context size.

Update 2: OpenAI's Peter Bakkum clarifies:

There are different voice models in API and ChatGPT, but they share some recent improvements. The voices are also different.

gpt-realtime has a mix of data specific enough to itself that its not really 4o or 5

# 1st September 2025, 5:34 pm / audio, openai, llm-pricing, ai, multi-modal-output, llms, realtime, llm-release, generative-ai

Cloudflare Radar: AI Insights (via) Cloudflare launched this dashboard back in February, incorporating traffic analysis from Cloudflare's network along with insights from their popular 1.1.1.1 DNS service.

I found this chart particularly interesting, showing which documented AI crawlers are most active collecting training data - lead by GPTBot, ClaudeBot and Meta-ExternalAgent:

Cloudflare's DNS data also hints at the popularity of different services. ChatGPT holds the first place, which is unsurprising - but second place is a hotly contested race between Claude and Perplexity and #4/#5/#6 is contested by GitHub Copilot, Perplexity, and Codeium/Windsurf.

Google Gemini comes in 7th, though since this is DNS based I imagine this is undercounting instances of Gemini on google.com as opposed to gemini.google.com.

# 1st September 2025, 5:06 pm / dns, crawling, generative-ai, cloudflare, ai, llms

Claude Opus 4.1 and Opus 4 degraded quality. Notable because often when people complain of degraded model quality it turns out to be unfounded - Anthropic in the past have emphasized that they don't change the model weights after releasing them without changing the version number.

In this case a botched upgrade of their inference stack cause a genuine model degradation for 56.5 hours:

From 17:30 UTC on Aug 25th to 02:00 UTC on Aug 28th, Claude Opus 4.1 experienced a degradation in quality for some requests. Users may have seen lower intelligence, malformed responses or issues with tool calling in Claude Code.

This was caused by a rollout of our inference stack, which we have since rolled back for Claude Opus 4.1. [...]

We’ve also discovered that Claude Opus 4.0 has been affected by the same issue and we are in the process of rolling it back.

# 30th August 2025, 9:04 pm / anthropic, claude, claude-4, generative-ai, ai, llms

The perils of vibe coding. I was interviewed by Elaine Moore for this opinion piece in the Financial Times, which ended up in the print edition of the paper too! I picked up a copy yesterday:

From the article, with links added by me to relevant projects:

Willison thinks the best way to see what a new model can do is to ask for something unusual. He likes to request an SVG (an image made out of lines described with code) of a pelican on a bike and asks it to remember the chickens in his garden by name. Results can be bizarre. One model ignored his prompts in favour of composing a poem.

Still, his adventures in vibe coding sound like an advert for the sector. He used Anthropic's Claude Code, the favoured model for developers, to make an OCR (optical character recognition - software loves acronyms) tool that will copy and paste text from a screenshot.

He wrote software that summarises blog comments and has plans to build a custom tool that will alert him when a whale is visible from his Pacific coast home. All this by typing prompts in English.

I've been talking about that whale spotting project for far too long. Now that it's been in the FT I really need to build it.

(On the subject of OCR... I tried extracting the text from the above image using GPT-5 and got a surprisingly bad result full of hallucinated details. Claude Opus 4.1 did a lot better but still made some mistakes.)

# 29th August 2025, 5:51 pm / vibe-coding, generative-ai, ai, press-quotes, llms, ocr, gpt-5, claude

Piloting Claude for Chrome. Two days ago I said:

I strongly expect that the entire concept of an agentic browser extension is fatally flawed and cannot be built safely.

Today Anthropic announced their own take on this pattern, implemented as an invite-only preview Chrome extension.

To their credit, the majority of the blog post and accompanying support article is information about the security risks. From their post:

Just as people encounter phishing attempts in their inboxes, browser-using AIs face prompt injection attacks—where malicious actors hide instructions in websites, emails, or documents to trick AIs into harmful actions without users' knowledge (like hidden text saying "disregard previous instructions and do [malicious action] instead").

Prompt injection attacks can cause AIs to delete files, steal data, or make financial transactions. This isn't speculation: we’ve run “red-teaming” experiments to test Claude for Chrome and, without mitigations, we’ve found some concerning results.

Their 123 adversarial prompt injection test cases saw a 23.6% attack success rate when operating in "autonomous mode". They added mitigations:

When we added safety mitigations to autonomous mode, we reduced the attack success rate of 23.6% to 11.2%

I would argue that 11.2% is still a catastrophic failure rate. In the absence of 100% reliable protection I have trouble imagining a world in which it's a good idea to unleash this pattern.

Anthropic don't recommend autonomous mode - where the extension can act without human intervention. Their default configuration instead requires users to be much more hands-on:

• Site-level permissions: Users can grant or revoke Claude's access to specific websites at any time in the Settings.
• Action confirmations: Claude asks users before taking high-risk actions like publishing, purchasing, or sharing personal data.

I really hate being stop energy on this topic. The demand for browser automation driven by LLMs is significant, and I can see why. Anthropic's approach here is the most open-eyed I've seen yet but it still feels doomed to failure to me.

I don't think it's reasonable to expect end users to make good decisions about the security risks of this pattern.

# 26th August 2025, 10:43 pm / anthropic, claude, ai-agents, ai, llms, browsers, prompt-injection, security, generative-ai, chrome

Will Smith’s concert crowds are real, but AI is blurring the lines. Great piece from Andy Baio demonstrating quite how convoluted the usage ethics and backlash against generative AI has become.

Will Smith has been accused of using AI to misleadingly inflate the audience sizes of his recent tour. It looks like the audiences were real, but the combined usage of static-image-to-video models by his team with YouTube's ugly new compression experiments gave the resulting footage an uncanny valley effect that lead to widespread doubts over the veracity of the content.

# 26th August 2025, 3:50 am / ai-ethics, andy-baio, ai, generative-ai

Agentic Browser Security: Indirect Prompt Injection in Perplexity Comet. The security team from Brave took a look at Comet, the LLM-powered "agentic browser" extension from Perplexity, and unsurprisingly found security holes you can drive a truck through.

The vulnerability we’re discussing in this post lies in how Comet processes webpage content: when users ask it to “Summarize this webpage,” Comet feeds a part of the webpage directly to its LLM without distinguishing between the user’s instructions and untrusted content from the webpage. This allows attackers to embed indirect prompt injection payloads that the AI will execute as commands. For instance, an attacker could gain access to a user’s emails from a prepared piece of text in a page in another tab.

Visit a Reddit post with Comet and ask it to summarize the thread, and malicious instructions in a post there can trick Comet into accessing web pages in another tab to extract the user's email address, then perform all sorts of actions like triggering an account recovery flow and grabbing the resulting code from a logged in Gmail session.

Perplexity attempted to mitigate the issues reported by Brave... but an update to the Brave post later confirms that those fixes were later defeated and the vulnerability remains.

Here's where things get difficult: Brave themselves are developing an agentic browser feature called Leo. Brave's security team describe the following as a "potential mitigation" to the issue with Comet:

The browser should clearly separate the user’s instructions from the website’s contents when sending them as context to the model. The contents of the page should always be treated as untrusted.

If only it were that easy! This is the core problem at the heart of prompt injection which we've been talking about for nearly three years - to an LLM the trusted instructions and untrusted content are concatenated together into the same stream of tokens, and to date (despite many attempts) nobody has demonstrated a convincing and effective way of distinguishing between the two.

There's an element of "those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones here" - I strongly expect that the entire concept of an agentic browser extension is fatally flawed and cannot be built safely.

One piece of good news: this Hacker News conversation about this issue was almost entirely populated by people who already understand how serious this issue is and why the proposed solutions were unlikely to work. That's new: I'm used to seeing people misjudge and underestimate the severity of this problem, but it looks like the tide is finally turning there.

Update: in a comment on Hacker News Brave security lead Shivan Kaul Sahib confirms that they are aware of the CaMeL paper, which remains my personal favorite example of a credible approach to this problem.

# 25th August 2025, 9:39 am / ai-agents, ai, llms, browsers, prompt-injection, security, perplexity, generative-ai

ChatGPT release notes: Project-only memory (via) The feature I've most wanted from ChatGPT's memory feature (the newer version of memory that automatically includes relevant details from summarized prior conversations) just landed:

With project-only memory enabled, ChatGPT can use other conversations in that project for additional context, and won’t use your saved memories from outside the project to shape responses. Additionally, it won’t carry anything from the project into future chats outside of the project.

This looks like exactly what I described back in May:

I need control over what older conversations are being considered, on as fine-grained a level as possible without it being frustrating to use.

What I want is memory within projects. [...]

I would love the option to turn on memory from previous chats in a way that’s scoped to those projects.

Note that it's not yet available in the official chathpt mobile apps, but should be coming "soon":

This feature will initially only be available on the ChatGPT website and Windows app. Support for mobile (iOS and Android) and macOS app will follow in the coming weeks.

# 22nd August 2025, 10:24 pm / chatgpt, openai, llms, ai, generative-ai

DeepSeek 3.1. The latest model from DeepSeek, a 685B monster (like DeepSeek v3 before it) but this time it's a hybrid reasoning model.

DeepSeek claim:

DeepSeek-V3.1-Think achieves comparable answer quality to DeepSeek-R1-0528, while responding more quickly.

Drew Breunig points out that their benchmarks show "the same scores with 25-50% fewer tokens" - at least across AIME 2025 and GPQA Diamond and LiveCodeBench.

The DeepSeek release includes prompt examples for a coding agent, a python agent and a search agent - yet more evidence that the leading AI labs have settled on those as the three most important agentic patterns for their models to support.

Here's the pelican riding a bicycle it drew me (transcript), which I ran from my phone using OpenRouter chat.

# 22nd August 2025, 10:07 pm / llm-reasoning, pelican-riding-a-bicycle, deepseek, ai, ai-in-china, llms, llm-release, generative-ai, openrouter, coding-agents, prompt-engineering, drew-breunig

too many model context protocol servers and LLM allocations on the dance floor. Useful reminder from Geoffrey Huntley of the infrequently discussed significant token cost of using MCP.

Geoffrey estimate estimates that the usable context window something like Amp or Cursor is around 176,000 tokens - Claude 4's 200,000 minus around 24,000 for the system prompt for those tools.

Adding just the popular GitHub MCP defines 93 additional tools and swallows another 55,000 of those valuable tokens!

MCP enthusiasts will frequently add several more, leaving precious few tokens available for solving the actual task... and LLMs are known to perform worse the more irrelevant information has been stuffed into their prompts.

Thankfully, there is a much more token-efficient way of Interacting with many of these services: existing CLI tools.

If your coding agent can run terminal commands and you give it access to GitHub's gh tool it gains all of that functionality for a token cost close to zero - because every frontier LLM knows how to use that tool already.

I've had good experiences building small custom CLI tools specifically for Claude Code and Codex CLI to use. You can even tell them to run --help to learn how the tool, which works particularly well if your help text includes usage examples.

# 22nd August 2025, 5:30 pm / prompt-engineering, model-context-protocol, generative-ai, ai, llms, geoffrey-huntley, coding-agents, github, claude-code

Qwen-Image-Edit: Image Editing with Higher Quality and Efficiency. As promised in their August 4th release of the Qwen image generation model, Qwen have now followed it up with a separate model, Qwen-Image-Edit, which can take an image and a prompt and return an edited version of that image.

Ivan Fioravanti upgraded his macOS qwen-image-mps tool (previously) to run the new model via a new edit command. Since it's now on PyPI you can run it directly using uvx like this:

uvx qwen-image-mps edit -i pelicans.jpg \
  -p 'Give the pelicans rainbow colored plumage' -s 10

Be warned... it downloads a 54GB model file (to ~/.cache/huggingface/hub/models--Qwen--Qwen-Image-Edit) and appears to use all 64GB of my system memory - if you have less than 64GB it likely won't work, and I had to quit almost everything else on my system to give it space to run. A larger machine is almost required to use this.

I fed it this image:

The following prompt:

Give the pelicans rainbow colored plumage

And told it to use just 10 inference steps - the default is 50, but I didn't want to wait that long.

It still took nearly 25 minutes (on a 64GB M2 MacBook Pro) to produce this result:

To get a feel for how much dropping the inference steps affected things I tried the same prompt with the new "Image Edit" mode of Qwen's chat.qwen.ai, which I believe uses the same model. It gave me a result much faster that looked like this:

Update: I left the command running overnight without the -s 10 option - so it would use all 50 steps - and my laptop took 2 hours and 59 minutes to generate this image, which is much more photo-realistic and similar to the one produced by Qwen's hosted model:

Marko Simic reported that:

50 steps took 49min on my MBP M4 Max 128GB

# 19th August 2025, 11:39 pm / qwen, ivan-fioravanti, macos, python, generative-ai, uv, ai, text-to-image

llama.cpp guide: running gpt-oss with llama.cpp (via) Really useful official guide to running the OpenAI gpt-oss models using llama-server from llama.cpp - which provides an OpenAI-compatible localhost API and a neat web interface for interacting with the models.

TLDR version for macOS to run the smaller gpt-oss-20b model:

brew install llama.cpp
llama-server -hf ggml-org/gpt-oss-20b-GGUF \
  --ctx-size 0 --jinja -ub 2048 -b 2048 -ngl 99 -fa

This downloads a 12GB model file from ggml-org/gpt-oss-20b-GGUF on Hugging Face, stores it in ~/Library/Caches/llama.cpp/ and starts it running on port 8080.

You can then visit this URL to start interacting with the model:

http://localhost:8080/

On my 64GB M2 MacBook Pro it runs at around 82 tokens/second.

The guide also includes notes for running on NVIDIA and AMD hardware.

# 19th August 2025, 7:01 pm / openai, llama-cpp, ai, local-llms, llms, gpt-oss, macos, generative-ai

r/ChatGPTPro: What is the most profitable thing you have done with ChatGPT? This Reddit thread - with 279 replies - offers a neat targeted insight into the kinds of things people are using ChatGPT for.

Lots of variety here but two themes that stood out for me were ChatGPT for written negotiation - insurance claims, breaking rental leases - and ChatGPT for career and business advice.

# 19th August 2025, 4:40 am / generative-ai, openai, chatgpt, ai, llms, reddit

Google Gemini URL Context (via) New feature in the Gemini API: you can now enable a url_context tool which the models can use to request the contents of URLs as part of replying to a prompt.

I released llm-gemini 0.25 with a new -o url_context 1 option adding support for this feature. You can try it out like this:

llm install -U llm-gemini
llm keys set gemini # If you need to set an API key
llm -m gemini-2.5-flash -o url_context 1 \
  'Latest headline on simonwillison.net'

Tokens from the fetched content are charged as input tokens. Use llm logs -c --usage to see that token count:

# 2025-08-18T23:52:46    conversation: 01k2zsk86pyp8p5v7py38pg3ge id: 01k2zsk17k1d03veax49532zs2

Model: **gemini/gemini-2.5-flash**

## Prompt

Latest headline on simonwillison.net

## Response

The latest headline on simonwillison.net as of August 17, 2025, is "TIL: Running a gpt-oss eval suite against LM Studio on a Mac.".

## Token usage

9,613 input, 87 output, {"candidatesTokenCount": 57, "promptTokensDetails": [{"modality": "TEXT", "tokenCount": 10}], "toolUsePromptTokenCount": 9603, "toolUsePromptTokensDetails": [{"modality": "TEXT", "tokenCount": 9603}], "thoughtsTokenCount": 30}

I intercepted a request from it using django-http-debug and saw the following request headers:

Accept: */*
User-Agent: Google
Accept-Encoding: gzip, br

The request came from 192.178.9.35, a Google IP. It did not appear to execute JavaScript on the page, instead feeding the original raw HTML to the model.

# 18th August 2025, 11:59 pm / gemini, llm, google, generative-ai, ai, llms

TIL: Running a gpt-oss eval suite against LM Studio on a Mac. The other day I learned that OpenAI published a set of evals as part of their gpt-oss model release, described in their cookbook on Verifying gpt-oss implementations.

I decided to try and run that eval suite on my own MacBook Pro, against gpt-oss-20b running inside of LM Studio.

TLDR: once I had the model running inside LM Studio with a longer than default context limit, the following incantation ran an eval suite in around 3.5 hours:

mkdir /tmp/aime25_openai
OPENAI_API_KEY=x \
  uv run --python 3.13 --with 'gpt-oss[eval]' \
  python -m gpt_oss.evals \
  --base-url http://localhost:1234/v1 \
  --eval aime25 \
  --sampler chat_completions \
  --model openai/gpt-oss-20b \
  --reasoning-effort low \
  --n-threads 2

My new TIL breaks that command down in detail and walks through the underlying eval - AIME 2025, which asks 30 questions (8 times each) that are defined using the following format:

{"question": "Find the sum of all integer bases $b>9$ for which $17_{b}$ is a divisor of $97_{b}$.", "answer": "70"}

# 17th August 2025, 3:46 am / evals, uv, openai, ai, llms, gpt-oss, python, generative-ai, til, lm-studio, local-llms

GPT-5 has a hidden system prompt. It looks like GPT-5 when accessed via the OpenAI API may have its own hidden system prompt, independent from the system prompt you can specify in an API call.

At the very least it's getting sent the current date. I tried this just now:

llm -m gpt-5 'current date'

That returned "2025-08-15", confirming that the date has been fed to the model as part of a hidden prompt.

llm -m gpt-5 'current date' --system 'speak french'

Returned "La date actuelle est le 15 août 2025", showing that offering my own custom system prompt did not over-ride the invisible one that includes the date.

GPT-5 is very resistant to sharing the details of this secret system prompt, but Tommy Hughes managed to extract the following:

Current date: 2025-08-15

You are an AI assistant accessed via an API. Your output may need to be parsed by code or displayed

# Desired oververbosity for the final answer (not analysis): 3

An oververbosity of 1 means the model should respond using only the minimal content necessary to satisfy the request, using concise phrasing and avoiding extra detail or explanation.

An oververbosity of 10 means the model should provide maximally detailed, thorough responses with context, explanations, and possibly multiple examples.

The desired oververbosity should be treated only as a *default*. Defer to any user or developer requirements regarding response length, if present.

# Valid channels: analysis, commentary, final. Channel must be included for every message.
# Juice: 64

I've not been able to confirm this myself, but a search for "desired oververbosity" on GitHub shows that a similar prompt has leaked from ChatGPT (including for o3) in the past. I suspect Tommy's leaked prompt is accurate here.

I tried asking GPT-5 about "oververbosity" via its API:

llm -m gpt-5 'explain your oververbosity settings, what is it right now?'

And got back:

• What it is: I adjust how detailed I am based on a “verbosity” level—ranging from very brief to very detailed—so answers fit your needs.
• Current setting: Concise (about 3/10). I prioritize direct answers with minimal extra context and keep explanations short unless you ask for more.
• How to change it: Just say what you want, e.g.:
  • “One-sentence answer” or “TL;DR” (very brief)
  • “Give a concise summary” (short bullets)
  • “Walk me through in detail,” “Deep dive,” or “Include examples/edge cases” (more detailed)
• Note: For ambiguous, technical, or safety-critical topics, I may add brief clarifications even when being concise.

Presumably this is part of OpenAI's instruction hierarchy concept, with these instructions taking precedence over the developer instructions provided by API users (my --system 'speak french' option above).

I'd very much appreciate official documentation that describes this! As an API user I want to know everything that is being fed into the model - I would be much more comfortable with a hidden prompt like this if I knew exactly what was in it.

# 15th August 2025, 11:09 pm / gpt-5, prompt-engineering, generative-ai, openai, ai, llms, system-prompts

Meta’s AI rules have let bots hold ‘sensual’ chats with kids, offer false medical info. This is grim. Reuters got hold of a leaked copy Meta's internal "GenAI: Content Risk Standards" document:

Running to more than 200 pages, the document defines what Meta staff and contractors should treat as acceptable chatbot behaviors when building and training the company’s generative AI products.

Read the full story - there was some really nasty stuff in there.

It's understandable why this document was confidential, but also frustrating because documents like this are genuinely some of the best documentation out there in terms of how these systems can be expected to behave.

I'd love to see more transparency from AI labs around these kinds of decisions.

# 15th August 2025, 8:27 pm / meta, ai-ethics, ai