The rules we will not break.

AI Insiders is independent. No investors, no equity in the companies we cover, no retainers from AI labs.

The publication is supported by clearly marked sponsorship, by partner offers in our discounts directory, and by the products we build ourselves. That is the whole list. If a revenue source is not named here, it does not exist.

A sponsor buys placement. Nothing else. Sponsor units are labelled as sponsored wherever they appear, and they sit outside the editorial well.

A sponsor does not get to see a story before it publishes, does not get a story written about them, does not get a rating changed, and does not get a negative story pulled. Sponsoring the brief buys no protection from being covered critically in it.

We do not publish sponsored content inside editorial, and we do not write "best of" lists for money.

Our discounts directory carries partner offers, and some of those links are referral links that can earn the publication a commission. They rotate through the directory and appear in a labelled partnership block, never inside a rating, a ranking, or a verdict.

The tool and course rankings themselves carry no commission. We hold no product and take no placement money for a position on a list. No tool has ever been ranked higher, or included at all, because of a commercial relationship.

That separation is the entire point. A list that pays the writer more when you buy the winner cannot tell you to skip the winner, and telling you to skip things is most of the value we offer.

We are an AI publication and we use AI tools to research, summarise and draft. We think hiding that would be absurd.

What AI does not do here is decide what is true. Every published piece is reviewed by a human editor before it goes out, sources are attributed to the original publication with a link, and facts, prices and numbers are checked against the primary source rather than against a model's recollection of it.

We rewrite for clarity and for our own editorial voice. We never rewrite to claim original reporting we did not do, and we never present another outlet's scoop as ours.

Corrections are made on the original page, with a note saying what changed, and the original timestamp stays. We do not quietly edit a story to make an error disappear.

If something here is wrong, email and it gets fixed within 24 hours. That applies to vendors we have criticised as much as to anyone else.

The method behind our ratings is documented in how we test AI tools, and the masthead is on the about page.

Last updated August 2026 · maintained by A. Benigni