Continuing on the theme of LLMs enhancing your own work rather than replacing it. I had several platforms sift through and critique my writings on my posts and blogs. Some of the results were interesting, and unexpected to say the least. For this test I prompted Gemini 2.5 and Claude Sonnet 4 the following: “Critique the writings of michaelmartinez.co.”

This is yet another tool in my workflow. I could take or leave the suggestions, but as always, it’s an option. After reading through the “experiment” I want to know what you – the reader would like to see more of from me in future posts and writings.

Gemini 2.5 talked of the following strengths:

Breadth of Knowledge: Martinez exhibits a wide array of interests, seamlessly transitioning between discussions on cybersecurity, the nuances of digital advertising antitrust cases, and historical analyses of xenophobia. This breadth enriches his perspectives and allows for interdisciplinary connections.

Topical Relevance: His chosen subjects are highly relevant to current global discourse, addressing pressing concerns in the tech industry (LLMs, AI, antitrust) and societal issues (xenophobia, foreign policy).

Clear and Concise Communication: The articles are structured well, with clear headings and a direct writing style, making complex topics accessible to a broad audience. He effectively summarizes key points and arguments.

Thought-Provoking Insights: Martinez often delves beyond surface-level observations, offering insightful critiques and raising pertinent questions, such as the effectiveness of breaking up large tech companies and the future impact of AI on advertising. His willingness to express concern about negative rhetoric and connect it to historical patterns of xenophobia adds a moral and ethical dimension to his foreign policy discussions.

Personal and Reflective Tone: Elements like his “Reading Updates” and experiences with Micro.blog add a personal touch, making his content more relatable and authentic. His emphasis on continuous learning and reading widely underscores a commitment to self-improvement and intellectual growth.

Use of External References: He frequently references external sources, such as TechCrunch’s “Cyber Glossary,” Jesen Huang’s views on AI, Mark Gurman’s criticisms of Apple, and Clayton Christensen’s “The Innovator’s Dilemma.” This demonstrates research and supports his arguments with credible insights.

The second part of the output were the “Areas for Potential Enhancement”.

Deeper Dive into Specific Arguments: While he touches on various aspects of each topic, providing more in-depth analysis or expanding on specific arguments with additional evidence or case studies could further strengthen his positions.

Original Research or Unique Perspectives: While he synthesizes information effectively, incorporating more original research, unique data points, or highly distinctive viewpoints could elevate his critiques to a more authoritative level.

Engagement with Counterarguments: Presenting and directly addressing potential counterarguments to his positions could lead to more robust and nuanced discussions.

Claude provided me with almost the same strengths and weaknesses as the Gemini prompt but went further in two ways. First, is a “Content Assessment”.

Technology Commentary: His AI/LLM analysis is generally sound but not groundbreaking. He correctly identifies key limitations but doesn’t offer particularly novel solutions or frameworks for thinking about these issues.

Political Commentary: His piece on American xenophobia attempts to draw historical parallels between treatment of Japanese Americans, Muslims post-9/11, Russians during the Ukraine conflict, and current Latino deportations. While the historical connections are valid, the analysis lacks nuance and depth that such complex topics deserve.

Educational Insights: His observations about AI in education are practical and well-reasoned, particularly his emphasis on teaching critical thinking alongside AI literacy.

Lastly, Claude provided an “Overall Assessment”.

Martinez’s blog represents competent but not exceptional commentary on technology and society. His strength lies in providing accessible, practical perspectives on complex topics, particularly around AI adoption and digital literacy. However, the writing lacks the depth of analysis or original insight that would distinguish it in a crowded field of tech commentary.

The blog serves its apparent purpose as a personal platform for sharing thoughts and maintaining an online presence, but it doesn’t rise to the level of must-read commentary on the topics it covers. For readers seeking practical, moderate perspectives on AI and technology adoption, it offers value. For those looking for cutting-edge analysis or original research, they would likely need to look elsewhere.>The author’s commitment to continuous learning and reading is admirable and likely keeps his commentary reasonably well-informed but translating that input into more distinctive analytical output would strengthen the overall impact of his writing.

I will keep retooling and refining my methods in the future based on this feedback. What do you, a human, think of the assessments from two of the biggest GenAI tools out there?