My bet is that too many frogs are gonna leap, that this is far too shitty a situation right now. They are gonna work extra overtime to cool it down some for now, collect & put some frogs back in the pot. And then slowly turn up the heat again.
I also do believe this is an incredibly hard technical moment. Elli-Tok has nearly no chance of suceeding in building their own algorithm, from square 1, since they don't have access to the ByteDance algorithms. I don't know what access they have to international content and internstional viewing habits, don't know if US content flows to TikTok actual and if they get any algorithmic help from that. This feels like a suicidal business, buying a brand name but lacking any and all of the means to maintain product quality.
There probably are real technical problems here. And feed preferences are probably just gone, while Elli-Tok rebuilds its own perhaps isolated perhaps loosely connected fork, while as said above probably lacking the content and viewer data to work from.
But just as Ellison's bought CBS then let it be overrun & destroyed by the hollow Free Press propogandists (pretending to be neutral, I say as my eyes roll out of my head), I also tend to think they thought they could get away with doing what they want. Maybe they will get away with this project. Maybe it is all isolated US only content, maybe it is swamped with right wing agitprop from here on out. Maybe half those viewers here keep scrolling forever and that's good enough to make the incredibly fantastically rich happy with their US government facilitated acquisition, that sundering an interesting diverse well tuned network is maybe or maybe not a delight but a necessary thing to claw under for this desired class propoganda. But I tend to think they're alas probably smart enough to learn quickly this is not how you boil a frog, and tend to think Elli-Tok is going to (suck for a long while either way, but work to) dial down the right wingism & divisionism a lot, then slowly work it back up.
(But man, watching these buffons mishandle CBS, watching ridiculous bald faced "salute to Mark Rubio" sure makes it hard to believe they have any competence at all.)
Different topic but the extremely critical TikTok v. Garland and the First Amendment Anticanon by Evelyn Douek skewering the unanimous Supreme Court decision that ok'ed this absurd international media property theft is amazing to read. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=6118706
I recently found out that there's no such thing as Anthropic support. And that made me sad, but not for reasons that you expect.
Out of all of the tech organizations, frontier labs are the one org you'd expect to be trying out cutting edge forms of support. Out of all of the different things these agents can do, surely most forms of "routine" customer support are the lowest hanging fruit?
I think it's possible for Anthropic to make the kind of experience that delights customers. Service that feels magical. Claude is such an incredible breakthrough, and I would be very interested in seeing what Anthropic can do with Claude let loose.
I also think it's essential for the anthropic platform in the long-run. And not just in the obvious ways (customer loyalty etc). I don't know if anyone has brought this up at Anthropic, but it's such a huge risk for Anthropic's long-term strategic position. They're begging corporate decision makers to ask the question, "If Anthropic doesn't trust Claude to run its support, then why should we?"
> Out of all of the different things these agents can do, surely most forms of "routine" customer support are the lowest hanging fruit?
I come from a world where customer support is a significant expense for operations and everyone was SO excited to implement AI for this. It doesn't work particularly well and shows a profound gap between what people think working in customer service is like and how fucking hard it actually is.
Honestly, AI is better at replacing the cost of upper-middle management and executives than it is the customer service problems.
> shows a profound gap between what people think working in customer service is like and how fucking hard it actually is
Nicely fitting the pattern where everyone who is bullish on AI seems to think that everyone else's specialty is ripe for AI takeover (but not my specialty! my field is special/unique!)
As someone who does support I think the end result looks a lot different.
AI, for a lot of support questions works quite well and does solve lots of problems in almost every field that needs support. The issue is this commonly removes the roadblocks from your users being cautious to doing something incredibly stupid that needs support to understand what they hell they've actually done. Kind of a Jeavons Paradox of support resources.
AI/LLMs also seem to be very good at pulling out information on trends in support and what needs to be sent for devs to work on. There are practical tests you can perform on datasets to see if it would be effective for your workloads.
The company I work at did an experiment on looking at past tickets in a quarterly range and predicting which issues would generate the most tickets in the next quarter and which issues should be addressed. In testing the AI did as well or better than the predictions we had made that the time and called out a number of things we deemed less important that had large impacts in the future.
I think that's more the area I'd expect genAI to be useful (support folks using it as a tool to address specific scenarios), rather than just replacing your whole support org with a branded chatbot - which I fear is what quite a few management types are picturing, and licking their chops at the resulting cost savings...
Tickets are a very different domain though. Tickets are the easiest use case for AI (as you have the least constraints on real-time interaction), but reference cases in tickets have ridiculously low true-resolution (customer did not contact you about the same issue again).
The default we've seen is naive implementations are a wash. Bad AI agents cause more complex support cases to be created, and also make complex support cases the ones that reach reps (by virtue of only solving easy ones). This takes a while to truly play out, because tenured rep attrition magnifies the problem.
to be fair at least half of the software engineers i know are facing some level of existential crisis when seeing how well claude code works, and what it means for their job in the long term
and these are people are not junior developers working on trivial apps
Yeah, I've watched a few peers go down this spiral as well. I'm not sure why, because my experience is that Claude Code and friends are building a lifetime of job security for staff-level folks, unscrewing every org that decided to over-delegate to the machine
Cleanup is less enjoyable than product building. If every future job is cleaning up a massive pile of AI slop, then that is a less fulfilling world than currently.
Perhaps even more-so given the following tagline, "Honestly, AI is better at replacing the cost of upper-middle management and executives than it is the customer service problems", lol. I suppose it's possible eightysixfour is an upper-middle management executive though.
IMO we can augment this criticism by asking which tasks the technology was demoed on that made them so excited in the first place, and how much of their own job is doing those same tasks--even if they don't want to admit it.
__________
1. "To evaluate these tools, I shall apply them to composing meeting memos and skimming lots of incoming e-mails."
2. "Wow! Look at them go! This is the Next Big Thing for the whole industry."
3. "Concerned? Me? Nah, memos and e-mails are things everybody does just as much as I do, right? My real job is Leadership!"
4. "Anyway, this is gonna be huge for replacing staff that have easier jobs like diagnosing customer problems. A dozen of them are a bigger expense than just one of me anyway."
We're working on this problem at large enterprises, handling complex calls (20+ minutes). I think the only reason we have any success is because the majority of the engineering team has been a customer support rep before.
Every company we talk to has been told "if you just connect openai to a knowledgebase, you can solve 80% of calls." Which is ridiculous.
The amount of work that goes in to getting any sort of automation live is huge. We often burn a billion tokens before ever taking a call for a customer. And as far as we can tell, there are no real frameworks that are tackling the problem in a reasonable way, so everything needs to be built in house.
Then, people treat customer support like everything is an open-and-shut interaction, and ignore the remaining company that operates around the support calls and actually fulfills expectations. Seeing other CX AI launches makes me wonder if the companies are even talking to contact center leaders.
There are some solid usecases for AI in support, like document/inquiry triage and categorization, entity extraction, even the dreaded chatbots can be made to not be frustrating, and voice as well. But these things also need to be implemented with customer support stakeholders that are on board, not just pushed down the gullet by top brass.
Yes but no. Do you know how many people call support in legacy industries, ignore the voice prompt, and demand to speak to a person to pay their recurring, same-cost-every-month bill? It is honestly shocking.
There are legitimate support cases that could be made better with AI but just getting to them is honestly harder than I thought when I was first exposed. It will be a while.
Demanding a person on the phone use the website on your behalf is a great life hack, I do it all the time. Often they try to turn me away saying "you know you can do this on our website", I just explain that I found it confusing and would like help. If you're polite and pleasant, people will bend over backwards to help you out over the phone.
With "legacy industries" in particular, their websites are usually so busted with short session timeouts/etc that it's worth spending a few minutes on hold to get somebody else to do it.
Sorry, I disagree here. For the specific flow I'm talking about - monthly recurring payments - the UX is about as highly optimized for success as it gets. There are ways to do it via the web, on the phone with a bot, bill pay in your own bank, set it up in-store, in an app, etc.
These people don't want the thing done, they want to talk to someone on the phone. The monthly payment is an excuse to do so. I know, we did the customer research on it.
Recurring monthly payments I set to go automatic, but setting that up in the first place I usually do through a phone call. I know some people just want somebody to talk to, same as going through the normal checkout lines at the grocery store, but I think an equally large part of this is people just wanting somebody else to do the work (using the website, or scanning groceries) for them.
> but I think an equally large part of this is people just wanting somebody else to do the work (using the website, or scanning groceries) for them.
Again, this is something my firm studied. Not UX "interviews," actual behavioral studies with observation, different interventions, etc. When you're operating at utility scale there are a non-negligible number of customers who will do more work to talk to a human than to accomplish the task. It isn't about work, ease of use, or anything else - they legitimately just want to talk.
There are also some customers who will do whatever they can to avoid talking to a human, but that's a different problem than we're talking about.
But this is a digression from my main point. Most of the "easy things" AI can do for customer support are things that are already easily solved in other places, people (like you) are choosing not to use those solutions, and adding AI doesn't reduce the number of calls that make it to your customer service team, even when it is an objectively better experience that "does the work."
There needs to be some element of magic and push back. Every turn has to show that the AI is getting closer to resolving your issue and has synthesized the information you've given it in some way.
We've found that just a "Hey, how can I help?" will get many of these customers to dump every problem they've ever had on you, and if you can make turn two actually productive, then the odds of someone dropping out of the interaction is low.
The difference between "I need to cancel my subscription!" leading to "I can help with that! To find your subscription, what's your phone number?" or "The XYZ subscription you started last year?" is huge.
>Honestly, AI is better at replacing the cost of upper-middle management and executives than it is the customer service problems.
Sure, but when the power of decision making rests with that group of people, you have to market it as "replace your engineers". Imagine engineers trying to convince management to license "AI that will replace large chunks of management"?
I would say it is a strong sign, they do not trust their agent yet, to allow them significant buisness decisions, that a support agent would have to do. Reopening accounts, closing them, refunds, .. people would immediately start to try to exploit them. And will likely succeed.
My guess is that it's more "we are right now using every talented individual right now to make sure our datacenters don't burn down from all the demand. we'll get to support soon once we can come up for air"
But at the same time, they have been hiring folks to help with Non Profits, etc.
There is a discord, but I have not found it to be the friendliest of places.
At one point I observed a conversation which, to me, seemed to be a user attempting to communicate in a good faith manner who was given instructions that they clearly did not understand, and then were subsequently banned for not following the rules.
It seems now they have a policy of
Warning on First Offense → Ban on Second Offense
The following behaviors will result in a warning.
Continued violations will result in a permanent ban:
Disrespectful or dismissive comments toward other members
Personal attacks or heated arguments that cross the line
Minor rule violations (off-topic posting, light self-promotion)
Behavior that derails productive conversation
Unnecessary @-mentions of moderators or Anthropic staff
I'm not sure how many groups moderate in a manner that a second offence off-topic comment is worthy of a ban. It seems a little harsh. I'm not a fan of obviously subjective banable offences.
I'm a little surprised that Anthropic hasn't fostered a more welcoming community. Everyone is learning this stuff new, together or not. There is plenty of opportunity for people to help each other.
> Anthropic's strategy seems to be to just focus on coding, and they do it well.
Based on their homepage, that doesn't seem to be true at all. Claude Code yes, focuses just on programming, but for "Claude" it seems they're marketing as a general "problem solving" tool, not just for coding. https://claude.com/product/overview
Anthropic isn't bothering with image models, audio models, video models, world models. They don't have science/math models, they don't bother with mathematics competitions, and they don't have open model models either.
Anthropic has claude code, it's a hit product, SWE's love claude models. Watching Anthropic rather than listening to them makes their goals clear.
Isn't this the case for almost every product ever? Company makes product -> markets as widely as possible -> only niche group become power users/find market fit. I don't see a problem with this. Marketing doesn't always have to tell the full story, sometimes the reality of your products capabilities and what the people giving you money want aren't always aligned.
Critically, this has to be their play, because there are several other big players in the "commodity LLM" space. They need to find a niche or there is no reason to stick with them.
OpenAI has been chaotically trying to pivot to more diversified products and revenue sources, and hasn't focused a ton on code/DevEx. This is a huge gap for Anthropic to exploit. But there are still competitors. So they have to provide a better experience, better product. They need to make people want to use them over others.
Famously people hate Google because of their lack of support and impersonality. And OpenAI also seems to be very impersonal; there's no way to track bugs you report in ChatGPT, no tickets, you have no idea if the pain you're feeling is being worked on. Anthropic can easily make themselves stand out from Gemini and ChatGPT by just being more human.
Their support includes talking to Fin, their AI support with escalations to humans as needed. I dont use Claude and have never used the support bot, but their docs say they have support.
I was banned two weeks ago without explanation and - in my opinion - without probable cause. Appeal was left without response. I refuse to join Discord.
I've checked bot support before but it was useless. Article you've linked mentions DSA chat for EU users. Invoking DSA in chat immediately escalated my issue to a human. Hopefully at least I'll get to know why Anthropic banned me.
There was that experiment run where an office gave Claude control of its vending machine ordering with… interesting results.
My assumption is that Claude isn’t used directly for customer service because:
1) it would be too suggestible in some cases
2) even in more usual circumstances it would be too reasonable (“yes, you’re right, that is bad performance, I’ll refund your yearly subscription”, etc.) and not act as the customer-unfriendly wall that customer service sometimes needs to be.
LLMs aren't really suitable for much of anything that can't already be done as self-service on a website.
These days, a human only gets involved when the business process wants to put some friction between the user and some action. An LLM can't really be trusted for this kind of stuff due to prompt injection and hallucinations.
Eh, I can see support simply not being worth any real effort, i.e. having nobody working on it full time.
I worked for a unicorn tech company where they determined that anyone with under 50,000 ARR was too unsophisticated to be worth offering support. Their emails were sent straight to the bin until they quit. The support queue was entirely for their psychological support/to buy a few months of extra revenue.
It didn't matter what their problems were. Supporting smaller people simply wasn't worth the effort statistically.
> I think it's possible for Anthropic to make the kind of experience that delights customers. Service that feels magical. Claude is such an incredible breakthrough, and I would be very interested in seeing what Anthropic can do with Claude let loose.
Are there enough people who need support that it matters?
>I worked for a unicorn tech company where they determined that anyone with under 50,000 ARR was too unsophisticated to be worth offering support.
In companies where your average ARR is 500k+ and large customers are in the millions, it may not be a bad strategy.
'Good' support agents may be cheaper than programmers, but not by that much. The issues small clients have can quite often be as complicated as and eat up as much time as your larger clients depending on what the industry is.
> They're begging corporate decision makers to ask the question, "If Anthropic doesn't trust Claude to run its support, then why should we?"
Don't worry - I'm sure they won't and those stakeholders will feel confident in their enlightened decision to send their most frustrated customers through a chatbot that repeatedly asks them for detailed and irrelevant information and won't let them proceed to any other support levels until it is provided.
I, for one, welcome our new helpful overlords that have very reasonably asked me for my highschool transcript and a ten page paper on why I think the bug happened before letting me talk to a real person. That's efficiency.
Even if you do track them, if 0.1% of customers are unhappy and contacting support, that's not worth any kind of thought when AI is such an open space at the moment.
If their support is bad and you can get cut off from it with no recourse, is that a good reason to supply our fellow HN readers with misinformation based on rumor? We should just say false things to each other and it's OK as long as they're bad things about the right people? That is certainly how a lot of the internet works but I have higher hopes for us here.
We can just say "their support is bad and you can get cut off from it with no recourse" without also supporting misinformation.
A lot of folks are latching on to the "hiding place" theory, and that could very well might have been one of the use cases. But as the article points out, the lack of a second exit makes that unlikely.
I would like to offer a competing theory. These are thermally stable storage places for perishables.
As heat transfer is directly proportional to surface area, the ideal vessel that maximizes the volume / surface area ratio would be a sphere (like some cryogenic tanks for rockets). But if you don't have the technology to make that or a cylinder, then the best you can do is observe that lowering surface area helps and make smaller, long rounded passages to try and optimize a ratio that you don't understand by feel.
I think it's more likely that these are are ancient fridges / hot boxes than a way to spiritually experience rebirth. I think a thousand places to store hay for horses and cheese for your family is far more likely.
Could these be boltholes? Yes, but how frequently were places getting invaded? War was mostly siege based and was fairly infrequent for a given city / place (i.e. even if the polity next door was under siege at the time. You weren't) Winter and summer - on the other hand - were and are yearly guarantees.
Perhaps. Perhaps that was one of the use cases, but the inconsistent diameter could also be the result of them being bad at digging tunnels. Digging tunnels by hand is hard (and - dare I say - scary).
I don't think being bad at digging tunnels can explain the bottlenecks. They are way smaller than what you'd expect from inconsistent diameter due to poor digging.
Some inconsistency from poor digging can be ignored as a minor inconvenience. It is no big deal if in one section you have to duck a little. The bottlenecks on the other hand are so small that the noticeably impede progress, and some people probably could not get through them at all.
If they are not there intentionally that would be too big of an inconsistency to ignore.
You may argue that these people aren't of such import, but I would beg to differ. This is the future of culture. These people shape the culture that the young people around you consume. They create the memes of six-seven-ification.
Influencers as the future of culture is not great. Hollywood had a ton of issues but it at least had some... class? If you watch an interview with Mr. Beast or other famous influencers they are concerningly ignorant, have little self-awareness and a child-like approach to reality. It makes total sense given these are teenagers who were lauded with fame for entertaining other teenagers on social media.
I watched the Mr. Beast episode of David Letterman's show, and I had no expectations but figured he must have some charisma as the most watched youtube person. He was unable to explain basic concepts, had no self-awareness, and generally seemed detached from any sort of reality. It was shocking to think that is who is shaping young peoples minds.
“but it at least had some... class”
Not if you’d have asked the WASPs at the time, they very much looedk down on Hollywood. Saw it as vulgar and beneath them for many of the same reasons people dislike MrBeast. The 'class' only came afterwards.
The movie industry was, for much of the 20th century, split between production in Hollywood and finance in New York.
Probably the last gasp of that was Marvel, where, for a long time, the merch and comic people in New York made the final decisions.
Hollywood actors being vapid idiots is a trope, or rather reality, as old as Hollywood. Every time they go on Letterman they have to carefully follow the script written for them to avoid embarrassing themselves and the industry. And they often fail at that.
BTW, actors are very often prostitutes. Have been since ancient times and the association has stuck. Mediterranean yachts are packed full of C-lister actresses/hookers. Not to mention most of them get jobs by sleeping with producers, which is just an indirect form of prostitution. I don't know about you, but classy is the last way I'd describe Jennifer Lawrence sucking Weinstein's dick.
> Hollywood had a ton of issues but it at least had some... class?
It looked that way because they had media training and their public personas were carefully managed, with staged interviews and media appearances. Behind the scenes, it’s a different story.
Influencers are rewarded for seeming authentic. Mr Beast coming across badly in a traditional TV interview just makes his audience think he’s more real.
I think things like "classiness," "grace," and "tact" are all but dead, both in Hollywood and across the population. Everyone seems to be mentally teenagers, but in middle-age bodies.
I understand this sentiment. When I look at my own life, one culture constant has been the decline of "formalism" -- dress, language, jobs, inter-generational relationships, privacy. If anything, the average YouTuber is a pretty average person -- not too good looking, not too well coached by a PR team, not too well dressed. Isn't this a cultural "win" because we are getting more authentic content, instead of ~10 major TV networks and film studios deciding who we should watch?
Yep. But give it a few decades for the money to figure out how to wall off outsiders, insulate their little cadres of influencers and firm up networks of fake and real methods to direct popularity.
Still - probably better than Hollywood in the long run, and more accessible, even in the hellish direction it will undoubtedly go.
When I was a kid, I used to world WWF (World Wrestling Federation) with my best friend. We loved the interviews (pre/post "fight"). Those guys were idiots and certainly "detached from any sort of reality", but also very funny to 10 year old boys! I also liked Jean-Claude Van Damme movies. I turned out just fine.
To use anecdotes of specific influencers or even to cultural short/med-term memes misses the OP’s fundamental point in saying
> “this is the future of culture”.
The point is that the future of “culture” is increasingly decentralized; that the ability or more aptly, the opportunity, to accumulate “cultural influence” will tend towards higher entropy as a direct repercussion to the proliferation of the means to accumulate it.
Put differently, as the hardware and software used to record, store, and share content become more widely accessible, anyone with the access and motivation to use the tools truly has the opportunity to become famous.
'Class','taste' etc these are all very subjective. One could argue that Mr Beast built all of his fame from scratch and didnt have it handed to him or having to sleep with some powerful gatekeeper - something you can't say about all your 'classy' hollywood stars. If you go back a century you can probably find people kvetching about the lack of class of these new fangled movie people compared to the theater stars of their day (who actually had to know how to act)
If one of America's main exports is culture, why would you ban factor inputs?
They're also not fungible and extremely mobile. People get attached to specific OF stars and the medium inherently requires remote work. So it's an inherently global labour force that protectionism won't help. American OF models won't magically make more money if you ban immigration unless you also ban cultural imports.
The government isn't displacing local talent by importing OF models and gets tax dollars for essentially doing nothing. Those tax dollars pay for schools/hospitals/etc.
OF also skews towards young, unmarried women, which balances the gender surplus of unmarried men that generally tries to immigrate. Since they're young, they also have more productivity before drawing on benefits like Medicare or Social Security.
By any objective standard OF models are the ideal migrant.
This seems more like importing culture. These content creators aren't coming to work or American creators, they are coming to America to create their content for American audiences or using American resources.
...I get this is HN but come on. It is just modern day JasminCam for lonely men that are being exploited through parasocial relationships. It is the opposite of productive. You just have society feeding on itself.
Isn’t that a derogatory stereotype? Aren’t those men (and women and other folks) as “exploited” as a reader of a book or a player of a game, who understands they’re about to be a part of a fantasy but willingly suspend the disbelief for a short while?
It’s only exploitation if this suspension of disbelief is artificially prolonged in nefarious way, with a self-reinforcing fantasy so the person loses touch with the reality and spends increasingly unhealthy amounts of time in a fantasy, or otherwise get conditioned and start to exhibit addiction-like behaviors that aren’t in their best long-term interests.
That happens (every entertainment industry has its whales), but saying it’s the norm (rather than a pathological extremity) is sort of stigmatizing.
Consent does not bless immoral acts or neutralize damage. A person who takes a drug voluntarily is still being harmed by it. It causes changes in the consumer whether he likes it or not. Causality does not care about your consent.
(And to address your analogy to books, the content of a work of fiction also matters. Reading bad books isn't good for your mind either. But literary fiction at least has the potential to be good. The genre isn't categorically bad.)
And porn is addictive. Porn addiction is extremely widespread and afflicts mostly young men. Porn's ubiquity and the easy with which it can be accessed has created a situation that did not exist before, and from a young age. And not only is it addictive, but it does real psychological damage to these consumers, creating what some call "porn brain". It is an excellent method for producing sexually-crippled creeps and incels unable - and even uninterested, given the nature of their "fantasy" - to have healthy relationships with real human beings, and the stats corroborate this.
It is an incredibly twisted and deranging vice. It destroys individuals and has a destructive impact on society as a whole.
> A person who takes a drug voluntarily is still being harmed by it. It causes changes in the consumer whether he likes it or not.
I’m afraid you’re oversimplifying it. If only things would be this simple. They just never are.
Every experience causes changes (it’s the whole point). And every stimulating experience has a potential to skew your behaviors towards having more of it. Some more, some less, of course, but anything can become a passion and get unhealthy so.
There’s this fine distinction between someone who does something now and then, without significant impairment to their decision-making abilities that cause over-favoring such actions, and those who fail to notice it in time and become overtly obsessed with something.
It’s not about what you do - you can be watching porn or going hiking (or whatever most people would naively deem “good”) - anything can become unhealthy.
I think I understand your point, though. Indeed, pornography consumption nature is intimate and that leaves less opportunities for feedback and self-introspection. That is, noticing the point it becomes more of an obsession. However, dismissing it under a simple “porn is bad” (a tempting idea) is short-sighted by dismissing any nuances, and also harmful - just in different ways (through stigmatization).
I am going to push back here. I follow a variety of YouTubers, and I'm pretty sure that I have a parasocial relationship with most of them. I never heard the term before I watched a Tom Scott video about it. It made perfect sense me, and I saw it in myself. Literally, sometimes I talk to the screen, like we're in the room together. But it's only entertainment, and it's a fun way to "escape" after a long day at the office. I don't take it too seriously. Am I being exploited by a channel of funny people in their 20/30s who fix cars, or lift weights, or talk about relationship problems? I don't think so.
Are all transactions on OF inherently a parasocial relationship? If a dude wants to jerk his schmeat to somebody he thinks is attractive, and pays for access to the media without otherwise engaging, is that parasocial?
You could do that for free. Most are obviously looking for more.
It kind of sounds like you are trying to justify whatever it is you are doing, in which case you do you. I don't actually care what you do and neither should you care what I think.
> You could do that for free. Most are obviously looking for more.
And everyone can use Pornhub for free, yet Pornhub still makes money on their premium subscriptions. Are those also parasocial relationships?
> It kind of sounds like you are trying to justify whatever it is you are doing, in which case you do you.
You know I thought about putting the obligatory "I don't use OF" in my first comment, but felt it wouldn't be necessary. I see that it was; by the way have you stopped beating your wife?
There is a reason why "the oldest profession" is a polite idiom for prostitution.
Calling it "parasocial", doesn't change what it is, but the technology as a mediator does. And society has been feeding on itself since we moved past hunter gatherers.
>It is just modern day JasminCam for lonely men that are being exploited through parasocial relationships. It is the opposite of productive.
You can make all the moral judgments you like, but the fact is: They're making money either way, and then spending that money in their local communities. They can spend that money (and pay taxes on it) in the US or not.
It's no different economically than a musician or an actor doing the same.
> why Hollywood became the Earth's center of cultural gravity post-WW2
The reason why Hollywood even exists is because it was a way of escaping the enforcement of patents and royalties. And it is easy being the cultural center of the western world when everything other cultural-relevant city in the western hemisphere is somewhat in ruins. Other than that, the lettering is a racist monument of a bygone era.
> You may argue that these people aren't of such import, but I would beg to differ
I'm not a US citizen, but lets face it - there is some irony in seeing some scientists fleeing for abroad offers, some probably deported, and having influencers or glorified strippers benefiting from some ill-thought program.
> These people shape the culture that the young people around you consume.
Do you have kids? I do. People don't give 2 f** about Hollywood or their "stars". Maybe in america. We have our own clowns here, and 15 minutes of fame doesn't require being predated on by some director (thankfully). My daughter couldn't name a single actor even if she wanted to - because movies are (mostly) dead, and series are a commodity. And I'm not saying this as some weirdo who doesn't own a TV or something - we have Disney, SkyShowTime, HBO, Amazon, etc. Its just "kids dont care about that anymore".
> They create the memes of six-seven-ification
So, do you know what that means exactly? Are you a Skrilla’s fan? Just asking, because from the tone of your response, you seem to have no idea of the meaning - just like kids saying "theez nuts" or whatever.
Another reason why US media is so dominant: It has the largest population of any English-majority speaking nation. Another thing: English is the second language for an large portion of people under 40 in the world.
I remember when I first learned about the size of the Japenese media market (TV, film, music). It is ENORMOUS. I could not understand how, as 99% of Japanese language speakers live in Japan. Then I realised that Japan is highly developed (wealthy) and has a huge internal market of ~120 million people.
> My daughter couldn't name a single actor even if she wanted to
I doubt it. You should ask her. If she is 10 years or older, she certainly has some favourites. If she has social media, ask her who she follows. I am sure there are a bunch of actors & actresses in her list. I'm not saying this to pass any judgement on you as a parent. Only that I doubt the authenticity of your statement.
> I doubt it. You should ask her. If she is 10 years or older, she certainly has some favourites. If she has social media, ask her who she follows. I am sure there are a bunch of actors & actresses in her list
16 and nope, she doesnt really care about actors/actresses as she doesnt really follow tv/cinema/streaming; she consumes mostly youtube,f1 and korean stuff. From what I've seen, this is not uncommon.
I disagree. I think the attention economy is a new, parallel universe of fame. Yes, old Hollywood and new social media interact and affect each other, but they are still fairly independent. Most Hollywood actors don't have a very large social media presence -- it is probably mostly managed by their PR team. And few social media influencers make it in Hollywood as actors or actresses.
I have no judgement on these models. Everyone can make money through legal means as they deem fit.
But at the same time, the immigration system historically penalized anyone who engages in prostitution and actively denied entry to people found to be engaged in it. There is an explicit question about this in all immigration forms. Which is why it’s surprising that O-1 visas are being awarded to OnlyFans models. Maybe OF isn’t prostitution according to how it’s being interpreted, but it’s very surprising.
Well Sweden sure thinks it could be a form of prostitution. While
Some form of OF is similar to pornography (pre recorded shows) other is similar to prostitution and therefore illegal (paying for custom live sexual acts). Obviously Sweden isn’t US, but it’s not as clear as “OF is just porn”.
Idk if you mean it literally but conflating the sort of prostitution they ask about on immigration forms with taking naked pictures of yourself seems very wrong.
Disclaimer: I don't mean this comment as an insult to you or anyone else here. It's meant to be slightly tongue in cheek.
I hate to be that person, but the fact that so many people on HN think OF is prostitution is revealing of the site's demographics (i.e. older). It is, as some may put it, boomer thinking.
You're misunderstanding what these people - esports athletes, successful streamers, influencers, OF models etc - actually do. They create and maintain parasocial relationships.
The point isn't just the gameplay or nudes / sex videos or commentary. For e.g., I (and a bunch of other young women for some reason) love to watch Temet https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=go8EJbNaIHg while working. It's the way they reflect back to their audience and allow them to become a part of their performance.
It's kind of like the place where everyone knows your name? These are digital third places and the content (whether it be neon blue bunny hopping characters or a graphic video of someone having sex) is a mechanism for bonding / a part of the activity. Kind of like the alcohol at the pub, I suppose.
That's where real influence comes from in this age.
If you think OF is prostitution, you're fundamentally misunderstanding what will drive power and culture in this century.
There's a strong parasocial element to traditional prostitution, although it's used more by high-end "escorts" who deliberately cultivate conversational skills. So none of this is new.
"My default strategy was this: I would invite the man in, we’d sit down and talk for a while. I’d establish physical contact in the conversation by touching his hand when laughing at a joke, or crossing my leg so it bumped into his. I would become increasingly charmed, utterly fascinated by his life, and I asked him to explain to me concepts I already knew (remember, they like you smart in order to validate their identity as a man who likes smart women, and they still love teaching you things)."
It’s not the boomer thinking, it’s just mostly talking about semantics. Prostitution is defined as engaging in sexual activity in exchange for payment, which is frowned upon in the immigration system.
Is being in a sugar daddy/baby relationship a form prostitution? Is paying money for a custom private show online where the OF model performs all kinds of sexual acts prostitution? Does prostitution require physical contact? Thats the question of semantics that I am curious about re:immigration.
And these questions aren’t “Boomer mentality”. There is precedent in asking for clear definitions. Sweden makes a distinction between pre recorded only fans work, which is akin to pornography and custom shows which are criminalized, akin to prostitution. https://www.loc.gov/item/global-legal-monitor/2025-06-10/swe...
> I hate to be that person, but the fact that so many people on HN think OF is prostitution is revealing of the site's demographics (i.e. older). It is, as some may put it, boomer thinking.
Well it's not non-existent either, there are a fair number of onlyfans models (and also general actors in the field of pornography who do the same) who do escorting on the side.
The argument from cinema is flaky and a moral critique of Hollywood's influence is unavoidable. But we're talking about porn here, not cinema. This is decadence and depravity. How can you confuse cinema with the construction of an international whoredom? The numbers are also incommensurate.
And TikTok is the antithesis of culture. It's consumerist rubbish that encourages a vapid, thoughtless, and illiterate consumption of shallow material. The article even mentions the monetary motivations of those posting. Any gimmick will do just to make a buck.
Let us not relativize culture. If you relativize it, then your argument falls apart anyway. Authentic culture serves human beings. It involves learning from, developing, deepening, refining, and correcting what came before. Trash content doesn't do this. It is cultural poison. It ruins people's minds and wrecks society.
This use of O-1 visas is merely another sign of the downward trajectory of our polity. We are following Plato's description of social decline perfectly. Perhaps aesthetically, it is fitting that Trump is the poster boy of this abuse of O-1 visas, but he is at best an emanation and a catalyst of broader and deeper social and cultural processes. In the absence of a minimum of sound moral authority, you can expect the poison that lurks in the mud to hatch out and begin to dominate the polis.
>And TikTok is the antithesis of culture. It's consumerist rubbish that encourages a vapid, thoughtless, and illiterate consumption of shallow material. The article even mentions the monetary motivations of those posting. Any gimmick will do just to make a buck.
My brother, you've just described modern American culture perfectly.
> Let us not relativize culture. If you relativize it, then your argument falls apart anyway. Authentic culture serves human beings. It involves learning from, developing, deepening, refining, and correcting what came before. Trash content doesn't do this. It is cultural poison. It ruins people's minds and wrecks society.
I am sure there would have been people at the time decrying the creation of pigments and paints as the fall of civilization due to "decadence and depravity." Didn't matter much, did it?
> We are following Plato's description of social decline perfectly
Plato was a wrestler. Plato would like totally be a gym bro, bro.
It has been a while since I've read Republic, but I remember Book 8 differently. To quote the IEP,
Tyranny arises out of democracy when the desire for freedom to do what one wants becomes extreme (562b-c). The freedom or license aimed at in the democracy becomes so extreme that any limitations on anyone’s freedom seem unfair. Socrates points out that when freedom is taken to such an extreme it produces its opposite, slavery (563e-564a). The tyrant comes about by presenting himself as a champion of the people against the class of the few people who are wealthy (565d-566a). The tyrant is forced to commit a number of acts to gain and retain power: accuse people falsely, attack his kinsmen, bring people to trial under false pretenses, kill many people, exile many people, and purport to cancel the debts of the poor to gain their support (565e-566a). The tyrant eliminates the rich, brave, and wise people in the city since he perceives them as threats to his power (567c). Socrates indicates that the tyrant faces the dilemma to either live with worthless people or with good people who may eventually depose him and chooses to live with worthless people (567d). The tyrant ends up using mercenaries as his guards since he cannot trust any of the citizens (567d-e). The tyrant also needs a very large army and will spend the city’s money (568d-e), and will not hesitate to kill members of his own family if they resist his ways (569b-c).
This summary matches my recollection more closely than yours. Could you please quote primary sources on what exactly you mean by "Plato's description of social decline?"
But influencers are by default distributed and don't really need to be in a single place. Most of their collabs are in luxurious venues around the world (Because we live in a world worshipping rich stuff but that s another matter)
>These people shape the culture that the young people around you consume. They create the memes of six-seven-ification.
I'd disagree, six-seven-ification is caused by the human desire for clout and tribal motivations - I'd argue that social currency is the reason people pursue fiat currency; ask yourself this, if I have you $100 billion, but you could not interact with any human beings from then on, would that $100 billion still matter?
Rather than influencers forcing memes, "six-seven-ification" arises organically from the authors' pursuing of belonging/clout within a tribe. What I would say is more interesting is that the lifetime of such cultural outputs is becoming more and more fleeting.
For Millenials & gen X our memes seemed to have quite a bit of permanence over the years. For the boomers and silent generations before us, their cultures were even more static (and traditional) by comparison. For gen z/a it seems their cultural language changes month to month, sometimes week to week.
Memes aren't enjoyed for years now, they're enjoyed for a few months. Horizontally spinning rat, Coffin dance, etc are all ancient history now.
And you can see the reaction to this; there are spikes in search interest on a lot of classic (2005-2015) memes, Gen Z is desperately embracing retro tech like camcorders, polaroids and 90s/00s outfits in a snap back to reality. The gravity of this cannot be understated.
The UI is the inverse of whatever intuitive is. It's built on convention after convention after convention. If you understand the shibboleths (and I'm guessing most people take a certified course by a trainer for it?), then it's great, but if you don't, it really sucks to be you (i.e. me).
I would LOVE to try out what you've built, but I am afraid that if the model misinterprets me or makes a mistake, it'll take me longer to debug / correct it than it would to just build it from scratch.
The kinds of things I want to make in solidworks are apparently hard to make in solidworks (arbitrarily / continuously + asymmetrically curved surfaces). I'm assuming that there won't be too many projects like this in the training dataset? How does the LLM handle something that's so out of pocket?
If it helps, I switched from SOLIDWORKS to Onshape many years ago and the latter has only improved since. The multi-user editing is first class and personally I find the user interface more intuitive (plus, web based = Linux support). I don't need the advanced simulation, analysis, etc. features that SW has over Onshape... yet.
Personally not familiar with curved models, but my understanding is that surface modelling with lofts guided by spline contours might be the way to go. Not sure if SW has those features.
I love SW and think it's one of the better parametric solid modeling CAD packages out there. It is tough to learn, though. I recommend taking a class or finding a mentor to guide you and answer your questions.
FWIW, back in the day I tried solidworks, inventor, pro e, catia, solid edge, anything I could get my hands on. I struggled to find something that would click with me, thinking it was the software that's the problem. It really wasn't -- the mechanical design problem space is vast and the requirements are demanding, which makes for solutions with a certain level of complexity. I had entered with a lot of hidden assumptions and found it frustrating when the software required me to address them, and on top of that, there's just a lot of stuff to figure out. It helps to have someone around to help when you get stuck.. that was what got me over the hump. At this point I've been using solidworks almost every day for about 15 years, and it only fills me with blind rage every few days, which I think is pretty good for professional software.
> I have a SolidWorks Students License and it's the most frustrating piece of software I have ever used.
Yeah, you need to invest time to learn it. I do understand the frustration when learning something new. I get it. However, your sentiment on this isn't leading to the correct conclusion. A piano or or a guitar are frustrating instruments until you get past a certain level of mastery.
Engineering tools do carry with them a degree of complexity. There are reasons for this. Some are, of course, better than others. I started in the dark ages with AutoCAD, then, over time, learned used ACAD 3D, Inventor, Pro-E, Solidworks, Fusion 360, Onshape, Siemens NX and CAM tools like Camworks and Mastercam; all in professional commercial, industrial or aerospace (NX) settings. I would rank Solidworks way up there in usability and functionality.
Of course, this isn't to say that there are lots of things that could be improved in Solidworks (and all of the CAD/CAM programs I mentioned).
Sometimes online resources like YouTube can feel (and actually be) really disjointed. Get yourself a good book on Solidworks and go through it front to back. At some point it will click. From that point forward it will feel like an extension of your brain. This is no different from learning to play the piano. When I use Solidworks I don't think about the UI, I just work on my designs.
And yea, you should find a course from a training firm rather than official documentation. It sucks and theres a reason Fusion360 seems to be really eating into the market after 5-10yrs.
Solidworks and a lot of CAD software is just a GIANT amalgamation of the original software and the work of all of the tiny companies they keep acquiring (basically whosoever built a plugin/competitor for their stuff).
It's most likely so poorly set up that I finch considering working in that domain now.
Source: I've had friends who've worked there.
Background: we studied computational engineering, but I got a non-domain software job. Sometimes I feel I learnt more being away from that sort of work.
Long time SolidWorks user here with experience in other programs. Frankly, SolidWorks is one of the easiest pieces of CAD software to use, being much more flexible in how things are done compared to a lot of other programs. That said, it is incredibly powerful software, and while someone can learn how to use it in a week, it takes months or years to be actually proficient.
My big tip if you can't find a button there is always the search bar. Just search the command you are looking for, it will even show you where the button is located for next time. That said, they don't move things around that much from year to year, I'm surprised if you can't find a command in a tutorial made in the last 10 years.
The features you are talking about sound like you want to be doing surfacing, which is definitely a more advanced modeling technique that I only recommend trying to learn once you understand the basics and can predict how the software wants you to model something.
Not the OP but is Solidworks similar to other professional software in that keyboard shortcuts give you a big leg up vs point and click ? I would imagine learning those would be better long term than a GUI that might change
Solidworks is not even close to the least intuitive CAD program out there. My preference is Autodesk Inventor, which I find to be far easier for beginners to pick up. Fusion 360 is supposedly excellent these days as well. For a real nightmare, try Siemens NX.
as someone who made their living on f360 for many years I urge newcomers to avoid it. Vendor lock-in as much as possible, along with constant rug-pulls and price-increases. DLC-ification of once-included features, and just shit corporate maneuvers abound.
If your work allows for it, go for freecad or better yet openscad if you're pursuing this new concept of LLM design. onshape is nice feature-wise but then you're just trusting a different group that has an even tighter grip around your unmentionables due to the saas nature.
To be fair : the constant betrayal of tech companies in my life has just pushed me a bit further towards local-only than most; I don't really condemn the -as-a-service industry, they've just been the first to pull rugs and then shrug their shoulders when their (usually already dwindling) customer base is screwed.
Every time you put in a query, LAD takes a snapshot of the current model and stores it, so you can revert whatever changes the LLM makes if it messes up.
Apple is at the point where they need a Jobs-ian correction again.
Steve Jobs would have had a fit over this product line. As '97 era Jobs put it, "The products suck! There's no sex in them anymore!"
My modest proposal for Apple diehards (especially employees) is to feed all the data that exists on Jobs into a multi-modal model so that Apple can hear just how much their shit sucks from Jobs' digital ghost.
It's not just Apple though. Something is wrong in the software industry. Desktop/PC operating systems aren't going away, but the industry have decided that it's no longer a relevant product category.
Windows is going down a strange path, where it's productivity is suffering because Microsoft is measuring success in terms of CoPilot adoption. Apple is stuck trying to invent the next iPhone, but in the meantime they are trying to make the iPhone sexy by slapping on a new skin. Then they forgot about macOS and quickly moves over some stuff from iPhone. Neither of the products apparent have UX designers anymore and QA is meeeh.
I don't understand either company. Both use to have talented UI/UX teams and actually listened to them. Is it really just short term stock price thinking that make them both forget that their operating systems should be about productivity and user ergonomics?
>Something is wrong in the software industry. Desktop/PC operating systems aren't going away, but the industry have decided that it's no longer a relevant product category.
Half of humanity is not very smart. Once you've sold computers and software to everyone who is smart, you have to sell to the not smart half. And that not smart half isn't going to like or even be able to use complex software. Since there are far more people out there simply consuming things and few people creating things, the bias is going to be for the simpletons.
Software and technology went from being a productivity tool to an ad delivery vehicle (or delivery vehicle for whatever bullshit is en-vogue like media subscriptions, AI, etc - that ultimately sooner or later comes back to ads).
Turns out you don't actually need much UX or design when the product's productivity capabilities no longer affect your bottom line.
My question is what those people think will happen when the transition completes and everything fully became an ad delivery machine with no productivity features? Ads only work as long as people have disposable income to spend on the advertised products/media, and they won't be having any money if you break the productivity tools they used to make said money. Ads can't work if the entire economy becomes ads.
>"The products suck! There's no sex in them anymore!"
Enter "Lickable Pixels" -- the phrase that stuck to describe the Aqua era.
Introducing Mac OS X's Aqua interface, Jobs said at Macworld in January 2000: "We made the buttons on the screen look so good you'll want to lick them."
Then there was the red hot irresistibly sexy and well designed IBM Thinkpad TrackPoint -AKA- Keyboard Clitoris -AKA- Joy Button, and IBM's explicitly lascivious "So Hot, We Had To Make It Red" ad.
Ted Selker, the inventor of the TrackPoint, told me the story of how that ad got written and refined by focus groups: He slyly suggested the slogan, and IBM's ad designers begrudgingly put it on the page in small text in the corner, below the photo and ad copy. Then they A/B tested it with the text a little bigger, then a bit bolder, then even higher, and it finally worked its way up to the top of the page in BIG HUGE BOLD TEXT!
Ted Selker fondly reminds me of "Mr. Lossoff" the "Button Man" in "A Nero Wolfe Mystery” episode “The Mother Hunt”, where Archie drops in on "Mister Lossoff’s Distinguished Buttons” in the garment district of New York:
He's totally THAT enthusiastic, a distinguished expert fiendishly obsessed with buttons! He even carries around a big bag of replacement Joy Buttons that he hands out for free like candy to anyone who’s worn theirs out.
I know this from personal experience: Ted and his wife Ellen once ran into me working on my Thinkpad at some coffee shop in Mountain View, and Ted noticed my worn out Joy Button. He excused himself to run out to his car to fetch his Button Bag, while Ellen smiled at me and rolled her eyes up into her head and shrugged, and we hung out and talked until he got back. I really appreciated a nice new crisp one with fresh bumpy texture, because mine was totally worn down, and it made his day to get rid of a few. (I imagine their house has hoards of boxes and piles of bags full of them!)
The common thread: design that makes you come. Back for more, that is. Buttons to lick till they click. Nubs to rub till they're bald. Products you touched obsessively until they're worn smooth. Tahoe gives us clownish corners we can't even grab. Apple dropped the ball -- and frankly, it's a kick in the nuts.
I guess giving up a life of computing and starting a life of vintage tractorring is pretty compelling, but I don't think they're making new batches of 1981 tractors; but who knows what VW is up to these days.
OTOH, DuckDuckGo gave me California tax forms. No thanks!
> "As Forbes reports, a whopping 1 billion PCs are still running Windows 10 - despite half of them technically being eligible for an upgrade. During PC maker Dell's November quarterly earnings call, the company's COO, Jeff Clarke, admitted that "we have about 500 million of them capable of running Windows 11 that haven't been upgraded," referring to all PCs, and not just Dell machines."
> In other words, those who own a whopping third of the estimated 1.5 billion PCs worldwide are outright refusing to upgrade, indicating Microsoft is seriously struggling to woo them. That’s likely due to a number of reasons, from simple frustrations over a tweaked and unfamiliar interface to the need to run software that isn’t Windows 11 compatible — and annoying ads.
reply