Of course, they can't realistically police every use of AI any more than they can police someone using Grammarly or similar tools. I think the core of the argument is really about drawing a hard line against low-quality "write a response for me" type usage.
In reality, people are going to keep doing that no matter what. But at the same time, it's still probably a worthwhile line to draw when it comes to discouraging more irresponsible or disengaged uses of AI.
While things like the expectation of lifetime employment (or at least very long tenure) may sound appealing, it also creates a job market with very low fluidity. In practice, if you miss that narrow “fresh out of school” hiring window, you can end up facing pretty unfavorable prospects later on.
People can still get hired mid-career, of course, but many companies traditionally hire based more on long-term potential than immediately usable skills, since they expect to train employees heavily through OJT. That also means the number of openings for experienced hires can be relatively limited. And because of the seniority-based structure, even experienced workers may end up starting near the bottom anyway.
There was an entire generation of people who missed that initial hiring window because of economic downturns and hiring freezes, and many of them still struggle to land stable permanent positions even today.
Things are gradually changing, but many structural assumptions are still there. For example, parts of the legal and employment system are historically built around the assumption of lifetime employment, which also makes it difficult for companies to dismiss permanent employees once they are hired.
I'd argue there's really no way to make OpenClaw truly safe, no matter what you do. The only place it really makes sense is within trusted environments, like B2B coordination or tightly controlled processes between systems that share the same assumptions.
The moment it steps outside that boundary, you're sending the bot into unpredictable territory. At that point, things can get ambiguous pretty quickly, and in some cases even adversarial.
The article does a good job calling out the more serious offenses, although I’d personally argue that nigiribashi is just as bad as the other two. Most Japanese people would probably react with a bit of shock to those.
That said, chopstick etiquette is definitely evolving. Something like chobujubashi isn’t enforced as strictly anymore, especially with more awareness around left-handed users. Kaeshibashi, on the other hand, is becoming more common, and in some social circles, not doing it can actually come across as rude.
Not only have there been those cancellations, but they’ve also been cutting back features in a lot of areas, especially in the Pro tier, and doing it pretty drastically without any notice. Honestly, I think that might be the bigger issue, particularly since many of the affected users are paying customers, and quite a few of them paid for a full year upfront.
Yes, this is a very poor way of handling the issue.
It's not like those 1 year vouchers have been stollen from them, they have been handing those out like candies and now they realized it wasn't profitable, they back off without any consideration for their customers.
It's been pointed out on Reddit that this move was not even legal in most EU because they have not been able to point out which of their ToC has been infringed (their official motive for cancellation).
I am tired of companies behaving like cowboys...
I think the only practical litmus test here is whether you can stand by the text as your own words. It’s not like we have someone looking over commenters’ shoulders as they type.
Ultimately, this comes down to people making a good-faith judgment about how much AI was involved, whether it was just minor grammatical fixes or something more substantial. The reality is that there isn’t really a shared consensus on exactly where that line should be drawn.
I guess this kind of rule feels less pragmatic and more philosophical. For one thing, it’s nearly impossible to enforce in practice, and drawing a clear line between simple grammatical correction and AI-assisted editing is a pretty hard problem.
I think this really needs to be framed as a "report low-quality content" feature, not a "report AI slop" feature. Otherwise, it just incentivizes people to hide their process, and it risks turning into a witch hunt where everything gets judged on whether it "looks AI" rather than whether it’s actually bad content.
I would disagree. I would never activate a feature that down-ranks or hides results based on some ominous judgement on quality by a Kagi team.
For AI Slop its pretty easy to determine because it is always lows quality and useless content that provides zero value and is a waste of time. The guidelines as specified also allow for some margin or error here I would argue.
Just my take: I don’t think “AI” automatically equals “slop.” There’s plenty of human-made slop too, and some AI-assisted content is genuinely useful. I’d rather see this framed as “report low-value/spammy content” than “report AI slop,” since the AI label tends to turn into “this looks AI” witch-hunting. That said, our baseline assumptions seem pretty different here, so we probably won’t fully agree.
I think part of it is that, in the US (and probably in many other countries too), the roles of maker and consumer tend to be more clearly separated. In contrast, among Japanese users, that line feels much more blurred.
One thing I’ve noticed is that there are a lot of “avatar worlds” where people just go in and pick premade avatars, but these are almost nonexistent—or at least not widely used—by Japanese audiences. The main exception seems to be worlds specifically designed for trying on sample avatars, rather than adopting them as-is.
>...the roles of maker and consumer tend to be more clearly separated. In contrast, among Japanese users, that line feels much more blurred.
Seeing a Japanese singer I really enjoy listening to post clips of her Valorant gameplay with her own music playing in the background was quite jarring. I couldn't imagine something remotely similar happening with a pop-singer in the West. The closest analogue that comes to mind would be D&Diesel with Vin Diesel, where he played D&D (the nerd that he is) for a youtube video with the Critical Role cast.
I provide full livecast coverage by visiting every booth at Vket, which takes place in VRChat twice a year, and over time I’ve noticed some clear patterns.
In Japan, the market for 3D models and other VR/metaverse assets has steadily flourished. Within VRChat, it’s fairly common for users to purchase avatars from platforms like booth.pm and then customize them to their liking—sometimes as simply as changing colors, and other times by adding clothing, accessories, or other elements. The market itself is quite approachable: some avatars are used by thousands, or even tens of thousands, of people, while others cater to much more niche tastes. Either way, there’s something for almost everyone.
Originally, the focus was largely on avatars themselves. Over the years, however, we’ve seen a noticeable shift toward clothing and accessories. Looking at booths in recent Vket events, roughly 40%—if not close to half—of the offerings now fall into those categories. Tools such as ModularAvatar and Mochifitter have made applying and adjusting these items easier than ever, lowering the barrier even further. More broadly, many Japanese users don’t seem to find working with Unity particularly daunting, and that comfort level has helped form the foundation of the ecosystem we see today.
While comedy and roleplay certainly appear from time to time, many people treat their avatars as genuine representations of their identity. This doesn’t mean that identity is fixed—some users switch between multiple avatars—but there is often a strong sense of attachment. The avatar functions not merely as a surrogate in a virtual space, but as something that defines how they present themselves within that world.
This emphasis on originality, combined with a general avoidance of ripped game assets or avatars based on existing IPs (at least compared to trends outside Japan), appears to have played a significant role in shaping this distinctive Japanese VR culture.
In reality, people are going to keep doing that no matter what. But at the same time, it's still probably a worthwhile line to draw when it comes to discouraging more irresponsible or disengaged uses of AI.
reply