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.

Beyonce did a Nintendo commercial once. That was amusing.

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.

I think the real litmus test should be whether the comment adds anything substantive to the conversation. If someone is outsourcing their ideas to AI, that’s a different situation from simply using AI to rephrase or tidy up their own thoughts—so long as they fully understand what they’re posting and stand behind it.

Saying "I asked AI" usually falls into the former category, unless the discussion is specifically about analyzing AI-generated responses.

People already post plenty of non-substantive comments regardless of whether AI is involved, so the focus should be on whether the remark contributes any meaningful value to the discourse, not on the tools used to prepare it.

A typical font contains around 7,000 characters. In everyday use, you rarely touch all of them—most situations stay comfortably within the realm of jōyō kanji. However, there are many edge cases, especially with personal names, where the required characters fall outside the jōyō set. Fonts must be prepared to handle all of these possibilities, including the less common name kanji.

Having known him for decades—not in person, but through various email exchanges when I reached out to BF—I'd say it’s a bit more than “just recognizing the name.” I’ve followed his journey since well before the OSS crowdfunding days, and it’s honestly amazing to see everything he’s built. Thankfully, it sounds like he’s not stepping away completely, which is great news.

As for the new leadership, Francesco Siddi comes from an animation background and is already managing Blender Studio. I’m genuinely glad to see the organization will continue to be led by people who deeply understand the tool and its community.

Product placement ads can be the best kind when they’re done well. The catch is they take far more effort to weave naturally into content, and that limits the kinds of sponsorships you can accept.

The sweet spot is when it feels seamless, but too often creators overdo it and the result is hilariously awkward. Think of someone discussing, say, the dangers of mountain climbing, then suddenly blurting out: “And you know what else is dangerous? An unprotected connection. Which is why you need X VPN!”