I did actually consider that quite a bit when I got invited to OpenAI's mysterious recorded launch event (they didn't tell us it was GPT-5 until we got there) - would it damage my credibility as an independent voice in the AI space?
I decided to risk it. Crucially OpenAI at no point asked for any influence over my content at all, aside from sticking to their embargo (which I've done with other companies before.)
Is it possible that open ai let you test a private version of GPT-5 that was better than what was released to the public, like the previous commenter claimed?
They changed the model ID we were using multiple times in the two weeks we had access to - so clearly they were still iterating on the model during that time.
They weren't deceptive about that - the new model IDs were clearly communicated - but with hindsight it did mean that those early impressions weren't an exact match for what was finally released.
My biggest miss was that I didn't pay attention to the ChatGPT router while I was previewing the models. I think a lot of the early disappointment in GPT-5 was caused by the router sending people to the weaker model.
For what it's worth, the GPT-5 I'm using today feels as impressive to me as the one I had during the preview. It's great at code and great at search, the two things I care most about.
He was one of the original authors of Django, back when it was a “web framework for journalists with deadlines”.