See my other comment. Webcomic creators got their own problems that aren't much different than his were. Be it having to deal with Social Media algorithms, or working for a recently-public company that wants to force people to an app, or having to be both a web designer AND a comic writer/drawer (smbc-comics /still/ having problems with their commenting system on their website comes to mind).
Question: Imagine it is right after Watterson stopped working with Universal Press Syndicate and making Calvin and Hobbes. You know someone who can get you in touch with Watterson. What do you do?
I ask because I humbly think the closest we have in the last 30 years to Watterson is Shen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shen_(cartoonist) . So much of what he did mirrors Watterson. More specifically, so much of his evolution mirrors Watterson. He clearly had a style that was working, but he evolved and it worked (not everyone evolves and it works, Matthew Inman comes to mind--still does great stuff, his new style just doesn't resonate with me personally, could just be me). I mean, it's not a one-for-one comparison, Shen has a plushie, for example (not much else). But there's a spirit there that I feel resonates with people deeply.
He recently left Webtoon and his 3x-a-week Blue Chair. I wrote him an email that he responded to, which is how I know if someone has a good response here, I can probably get it to him. I mention in my email Smol Web (aka Small Web, other names as well, heavily mentioned here on Hacker News) and he said "I like the principles in it." But I get the impression he still feels he must pay fealty to the social media gods (relevant The Oatmeal https://theoatmeal.com/comics/reaching_people ) and everything else is secondary. the tricky part is creating something that will pay the bills. If anyone wants to lend him a hand in that, let me know and I'll pass it on. Like, how /does/ do Small Web and make money?
Here's nearly all of my email to him, if you are curious. One of the things I hated was that during Shen's tenure at Webtoon they got more and more hostile to users browsing without using their app. I don't know if it figured into his leaving, or even if it was 100% his decision, but I do rant a bit about it. I also mention "We Go Forward." That is referenced in the Wikipedia article. Sadly, can't link to it without linking to a social media site.
---
Anyway, Webtoon's loss. They went public, they thought that meant they should act like Big Tech and force people into apps. Presumably to harvest all that data, make all their users the product, and sell that data to data brokers. They then wipe their hands of what happenns [sic] as that data is sold to surveillance states or worse. Of course, it's all predicated on the fact they can act as monopolies, following the Peter Thiel handbook. But assuming they could even become the next Meta or Alphabet going the way they did, regardless that the very ickiness of it should repulse one, is just hubris. Maybe they thought the app numbers, and the app data it would mean, would be enough to merger into a Meta or Alphabet. But you can't get there by simply forcing users bluntly and harshly. Forcing users is a late-stage Meta or Alphabet move, and it never starts blunt or harsh.
I see nothing wrong with them going public, per se, provided they can convince the shareholders to not be short-sighted. But I don't think they could, thus, it probably was wrong to do a traditional IPO. Shareholders want "growth" at all costs. So they will hinge on app downloads and engagement numbers with every earnings report. And so the stock price will hinge on those numbers, to the point where unless the stock price is unrelated to decision making--e.g. a non-voting arrangement for retail buyers like Zuck got--stupid decisions will be made. If not by the original company, by the "activist investment company" that buys all the shares and makes the same stupid decisions. Assuming the activist investor doesn't just turn it private again and vampires the equity.
Yes, they right now should have an app. But a simple browser wrapper app for those younger people who think everything should be an app. The core product should support browser viewing first. At least at first. Then assuming there's enough moat (which there definitely isn't yet) it's a question of morals, do you stay on that path, or do start to force people to the app little by little? Hobbling this or that. You don't go to "can't view this webcomic except in the app" right away. That's definitely a much later Darth Vader move which, again, no one should do (but if you're Zuck, you will do anyway).
I'll be glad to see you go somewhere new. Have your own site! Use federated social media! Realize there are fans who remember We Go Forward when it came out! You know, over twenty years ago, I spent two weeks on a web comic [removed, just in case it goes afoul of this Guideline "Please don't use HN primarily for promotion. It's ok to post your own stuff part of the time, but the primary use of the site should be for curiosity." This comment is about Shen after all]. I should have Gone Forward. I gave up. It had such charm in retrospect. Good for you! Keep at it! Web comics are genius, you never have to worry about handling large data or keeping systems secure. You just make a cool .png and throw it on a smol site. (Look up smol web as a concept, Smol Ghost would approve.)
"Don't stop" is what someone wrote to me once, and it meant a lot. The beauty of what you do is you /can/ Go Forward and not have to leave others behind. I think it's time for a reboot of that original comic. Like how they made a Diablo II remake with better graphics and toggles to go between old and new. You could start out new version of Go Forward with fancy graphics, then show a settings screen, toggle to old. Toggle back to new (people will get what's going on). Go all the way to the end and switch back to old. Then do some speed-runner type thing involving jumping on hidden objects and make the parents' house show up on the same screen and they can cheer him on to the end.
"
At present, there are no other major purchasers of AI compute outside of NVIDIA, hyperscalers (who are selling it to Anthropic and OpenAI, or they’re Meta, which has no AI strategy), OpenAI, and Anthropic. None. I can’t find a single one outside of Jane Street spending more than a few hundred million. We need a few hundred billion.
"
https://www.wheresyoured.at/ai-is-slowing-down/
The one non-circular-financing entity that is heavily spending on AI, is interested in you knowing how wisely they think they are spending their money.
Jane Street isn't one to telegraph their moves (seems like they prefer to Telegram them privately https://protos.com/what-weve-learned-from-terraform-labs-unr... , so not only Jump Crypto felt fine letting everyone believe the ponzi, per these allegations it seems Jane Street did too). If Jane Street is spending the most, and their staff is supposedly high value pay/profit but low headcount, for all the end user knows, their "AI agent" is half chat bot / half software engineer with 20 years experience who checks each result before sending it. Literally the Mechanical Turk scam of hundreds of years ago, where a midget hides in the stand and moves the chess pieces--with shades of Amazon Fresh self checkout. Maybe the higher ups at Jane Street know this, maybe not. But unless they have a closed system that Anthropic can't get into, I would be suspicious. And, of course, they aren't /that/ free from the circular financing because they are a major investor of Anthropic. To me the fact that the blog post doesn't start with a disclosure doesn't seem like a misstep/accident. And if they find out they are being Mechanical-Turked, I think it far more likely they'll find some way of shorting before telling anyone, or they won't tell anyone.
I agree with this. I also agree with the general spirit of "Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents, and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email [email protected] and we'll look at the data." I feel the spirit is definitely in the right place.
It's a tough nut to crack. I had a feeling that was the catalyst to my post. Am I completely inadequate? Why is it I can't create some perfect vibe app? I felt every prominent post I was seeing at the moment was saying my personal experience was invalid. It was so visceral, it was /too/ visceral. I got suspicious.
What was gnawing at me was the humility and nuance seemed missing in what I was seeing / was prominent. "I whipped up this code in seconds..." is usually--in a good faith scenario of telling such an experience--followed with some variant of "granted, it helps that I have twenty years in software engineering and could tell it was not slop. And my job has me using AI tools all day, whether I want to or not, so I already have a fair amount of prompting/tool skill to avoid slop. And, of course, this was a big win, but there were a ton of time wasters before that got me nowhere before and after this. And if I look at the negatives of what we give up--copyright theft, resource waste, ponzi-ish VC subsidizing token costs to create moats that probably won't happen but regardless is anti-competitive, financial trickery with tech-washing to cement broligarch status quo--not sure I'd make the trade they claim necessary for this win. But yeah, it was kinda neat when I took one second to look at it in isolation, before I remembered I live in a cyber dystopia and this tech doesn't seem to be leveling the playing field as much as the entire apparatus is making it seem bleaker."
Do I expect everyone to do this? No. Do I expect /no one/ to do this? No. Should I wait until one or more people reads an email to address my feeling before I make a comment? ...
I'll admit, I actually don't know on the last one. But I stand by my feeling. And I appreciate the feeling of this rule. But I also feel "degrades discussion and is usually mistaken" should be examined. Is it possible that "usually" is because astroturfing works both ways? "Usually" refers to a higher quantity of X over Y, which is exactly what astroturfing is about. Is it "usually" mistaken when brought up in good faith, carefully, and with nuance? One can call that making a "general statement."
I don't post about this topic constantly, I don't astroturf about astroturfing, a threshold hit me to make this comment, a threshold should be examined with this account and that comment. I think I am in line with the spirit of this rule. And I like the spirit of this rule. Beyond I am not sure.
It is a false dichotomy that abandoning anonymity must happen with verifying humans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-knowledge-proof . The only trick is who holds the infrastructure for the proofs. A single person or small group like, oh, the one(s) behind World Coin? People on ycombinator might know that one. Sufficiently decentralized, FOSS, /true/ non-profit (like Wikipedia), maybe. (Ironic I mention Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales' WT.Social never did take off.)
Further, the challenge is not completely autonomous bots that are somehow separate of humans, never has been, all code on Earth has and will have a human imprint even in the wildest AGI fantasies. The first false dichotomy is anonymity and veracity, the second false dichotomy is human and bot. And tho biggest challenge comes from a specific human-bot combination, the Cory Doctorow Reverse Centaur (though Centaurs also complicate things). One human can suddenly impact the "volume" of discourse, like a magic hidden megaphone that somehow no one can detect at a dinner party where the lights are too low to see who is talking. /And/ if there's a door check at the party, it's easy to transport someone who makes pennies a day to show up at the door, look like anyone you want, and then come inside with a magic hidden microphone that you provide them.
I think it's less about proving human, more about proving /reputation associated with an entity/. It's not about whether "awbvious" is human, but whether "awbvious" is committed to acting human. Committed to not use a hidden, magic megaphone. Committed to not using hidden, magic megaphones with others. Which I am.
Not sure, but I can tell you what my "oh s** astroturfing is so bad, it's even in Hacker News" moment. And if I learned GenAI was used to make some of the astroturf, that's more an "ah s*“ than an "oh s*“ thing. I mean, the prominence, ubiquity, and breathlessness. One out of three, sure. Two out of three, maybe. And some corpo shilling definitely happens here. But this is like, well, covering an entire area with artificial grass, to the point where nothing lives. Crazy.
This a repost of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42065193 . Ed Zitron's latest piece https://www.wheresyoured.at/hatersguide-openai/ free part of this Premium piece ends with "This is the Hater’s Guide To OpenAI, or Sam Altman, Freed." It reminded me of my post from two years ago. However, apparently the link doesn't work any more. It's the same Arweave Permaweb file. The original gateway apparently is now down, according to Cloudflare 504 page.
Blog says: ATM didn't kill jobs. Okay, it did kill some jobs. Proportionally did, but lots of new banks means overall more jobs. (The relationship management stuff is kind of irrelevant, it was simply the banks took the efficiencies to expand, thus still less tellers per branch, but more tellers overall.) /Completely different technology that didn't have the physical space limitations of ATMs/ then caused branches to decline and then the actual teller decline was felt.
Pretty funny how this is being twisted into what feels like AI booster shillery. Smart people are talking about AI as being similar to ATMs (I prefer the analogy of a spelling and grammar checker in a word processor) or other marginal increasers in human productivity/efficiency. They absolutely will increase productivity. They mean less people can do more. But the the roles don't go away completely because they have clear technological limitations. They spout probably likely text, and straight up lie, and you can't trust 'em. That's a limitation in what they are just like an ATM needs to be in a big metal box and they only dispense cash.
AI can't do the automated firm linked to (to be fair, didn't read that linked substack, as it looked as ridiculous as that other sci-fi fanfic by Citroni Research or whatever it was). Not AI as it is now known, namely an LLM chatbot. /A completely different technology/ might. A technology that might be informed by AI. Sure. Just like I'm sure mobile banking was informed by the technology in ATMs. But we're not calling smartphones with mobile banking apps "mobile ATMs". Because if we were, then you could get away with it. And the future technology that could remove "labor shaped holes" (or however the author phrased it) could be twisted into an AI nomenclature. Just like Machine Learning (ML) got twisted into AI nomenclature. But the iPhone probably didn't need the ATM to come first. It needed things the ATM uses. The next thing could very well use ML. But not enough to be called "AI" except to boosters shills.
Overall, this sounds like the usual AI boosterism that Ed Zitron complains about often. And I agree with his critiques. This article says nothing about how a /new/ technology needs to come about from AI. If it did, it would also have to comment on whether we need to spend insane amounts on data centers and circular deals to get to it. Because my guess is the answer is, no, it takes R&D and a truthful "we don't know what it looks like yet and we can't promise you shareholders when it will come" to get to it.
Ironically the author says the ATM story was used to come up with two incorrect interpretations, and then provides what I feel like was another. Still interesting, if possibly irresponsible in how it frames AI as iPhone--and not the ATM it still feels like. [EDIT: a word.]