It is "addictive" in the sense that it works really well, and has some guardrails so the risk of it doing something insane is minimized. I have done some cool stuff with it!
>Microsoft has been piloting Scout as an internal tool for employees it was calling “ClawPilot,” since March. ClawPilot—and now Scout—are part of “Project Lobster,” which is a Microsoft plan to bring the popular OpenClaw AI tool to its Microsoft 365 suite of products in a way that nontechnical people can use.
Given Microsoft's long history of failure with personal assistants I'm looking forward to this one! Clippy, Cortana, Copilot! Wasn't an animated dog called rover one of these way back? The best of all was unquestionably Ms. Dewey for Microsoft Windows Live Search who is almost forgotten.
Edit: I was wrong. But there is "Power Pup" and apparently Will Shakespeare
(I was way too into the building apps with the assistant framework as a kid...)
You can go straight to hell for making me feel old.
Anyone who makes products want users of our product to keep coming back as though they are addicted, but not actually addicted.
Can you explain the distinction? I am not seeing it. If I keep refreshing a product page to get another dopamine hit, am I addicted or not addicted but appearing so to your metrics?
I think apps are a different beast. They (generally, with few exceptions) want their users to be addicted. An addicted user is more likely to come back than one that gets a need met. Once that need is fulfilled, they leave.
If companies actually wanted to fill people's needs they wouldn't use dark patterns like having to call to cancel, spamming them without their consent, switching opt-out choices back with updates, etc. Because they use these dirty tricks, it's hard to believe they have the users best interest in mind. They don't. They just want the line to go up.
https://microsoft.ai/news/towards-humanist-superintelligence...
In an otherwise pleasant, humanist framing, they jarringly conclude Microsoft's primary AI application will be putting people into parasocial AI relationships for profit.
I'm confused and dissapointed that this isn't called Copilot, the users want more things to be called copilot even if they aren't related to each other, consider renaming Scout to Copilot, or at least Scout Copilot, or even better Copilot* (*Copilot Scout)
Although maybe it doesn't take much, given that it sounded at one point like the Microsoft execs were addicted already.
Huh? Have you forgotten Clippy, the first AI agent?
/s
I saw IBMers wearing shirts with it at the moscone center this week at the snowflake event.
Brewers want people to want beer, and to perhaps puritans, that desire could appear as “addicted”. However, brewers don’t want addicts - liver failure, destitution, death, are all things I doubt a brewer wants to see in their consumer base because you can’t drink if you don’t have a liver, don’t have money, or don’t have life.
Did I, as a child, think my dad was addicted to alcohol because I saw him drink everyday? I did, that’s the appearance it gave. Was he? Not to the clinical point of addiction, technically - he functioned, maintained relationships and a job, and wasn’t more than occasionally emotionally abusive. He fit the type of customer GP seems to talk about - appearing to be addicted but not wholly, truly addicted.
Once you're thinking about how to keep a user coming back, you're in the mutually adversarial design space, whatever language is used to more pleasantly redecorate that reality.
There's a race and tug-of-war to frame how interaction with apps works. The addiction word has a strong "think of the children" energy and I would expand any company to want to have their app tagged with the term.
Of course, what exactly "addicted" means in the context of interacting with a program really pretty fuzzy but yeah, "users not in control of themselves" is perhaps the biggest implication (and not necessarily false, mind you). Of course, this is a matter of both degree and social context.
If only we had a social dialog about the real meaning of things labeled addictive, perhaps their terrible impact could be mitigated. But hey, I guess we get policing and moral panics instead.
there are other industries who's entire business revovles around selling to addicts, why would MS of all companies suddenly balk at that line?
thewebguyd•1h ago
yieldcrv•1h ago
damn, he quickly disavowed the statement and got panned anyway
would falling on the sword worked better??
lepus•1h ago
phatskat•38m ago
sumeno•58m ago
gurjeet•25m ago
quantified•47m ago