Did anyone actually read the linked wiki in full? It’s basically saying “if there are embedded ads in certain live (likely sports) content we carry you may see them even on an ad-free plan because we don’t have an alternative. Also we might try to promote different tiers of Disney+ itself within the app so to the extent you see that as an ad, that’s an exception to ‘ad-free’”
I’m all for consumer awareness but I’m begging everyone to stop freaking out over prosaic non-issues like this.
> Also we might try to promote different tiers of Disney+ itself within the app so to the extent you see that as an ad, that’s an exception to ‘ad-free’”
Yes I see that as an ad. Do you not? Does anyone not? And if I'm on the highest paying ad free plan, what are they promoting to me?
I strongly agree, and it frustrates me when people and companies claim that advertising their own products "doesn't count." I cancelled my YouTube Premium plan because of ads. These are all the ads they permit on Premium, despite advertising everywhere that Premium removes all ads:
* Ads in YouTube feeds for other google products and services.
* Ads underneath videos for products from the channel owner.
* Sponsorships within videos from the channel owner.
* Advertising overlays (supported IN THE APP BY GOOGLE) for products and services from the channel owner.
* Email advertisements for Google products and services.
* Community post advertisements from channel owners which show up in the YouTube feed.
I contacted support to enquire and they state these are not considered advertising.
I don’t mind the in video sponsors. Some are good (ok map men ones are good), but crucially it’s not really something YouTube could directly block. They could put terms and conditions in place, but you’re driving product placement and it becomes a slippery slope.
Howver recently I’ve noticed adverts for “membership” for channels, and that is getting me close to picking my youtube habit.
Same with Spotify and advertising concerts, but that seems to have gone away for me after I complained.
Sadly even the bbc does adverts on iPlayer. You used to be able to instantly skip them, but then in a big (internal) fanfare some idiot decided they could make them not skippable and increase some metrics and then get a promotion.
What ads do you see for channel membership? I run a channel and put some of my videos behind a membership gate. I mention the premium videos in some of my free videos but otherwise don't see options in the YouTube UI to actively promote my membership in any other way. Is it putting graphics or something inside the video to tell you to click the membership button?
YouTube actually does block sponsor spots in videos if you have Premium. They call it "Skip Ahead" and don't really talk about sponsor spots, but practically speaking it's 9/10 just the "skip sponsor segment" button.
I remember about 10-15 years ago YouTube actually did try to ban sponsor spots in videos, but the backlash from creators was strong enough that they walked that back to "ok well we'll allow sponsor spots but you can't just insert the sponsor's own ad, it's gotta be your ad read and B-roll".
Most of the UI features that YT added over the last few years can be thought of as a way to skip sponsor ads. e.g., thumbnail previews on the seek bar, the little histogram on the seek bar, auto-chapter detection, and playing at 2x when you click and hold on the video.
They make it slightly easier to find the end of a sponsor segment, while still requiring me to manually interact with the video. As an ad blocker I score that either F+ or D-.
that's not blocking though. It's allowing you to skip over the areas people commonly skip in videos where they take the data from everyone. I get them at sponsor slots of course, but also intros often. Because it's not removing it entirely, I would not consider that blocking.
The parent’s characterization is fine. 9/10 times (more in my own experience) it is the functional equivalent of a sponsor blocker. That it technically isn’t that specifically is immaterial, because if it works, that’s because people are skipping the sponsor segments in large enough quantities for it to easily become that.
That said, I don’t think YouTube owes it to Premium subscribers to add a sponsor block. That’s part of the video’s content as it was provided to YouTube, and YouTube never advertised YouTube Premium as something which will block in-video sponsor reads. This is part of how YouTubers make a living & a Premium sub doesn’t replace the money they receive for those the way it does for YouTube’s own ads.
Yes it tends to work one at a time, but some videos have two sponsor segments and it doesn’t work the second time. I assumed it skipped to where people often skip to.
It’s such a great feature, and I see why YouTube gates it to Premium.
Once you’ve transitioned from an ad-watching customer to a paid one, YouTube actually turns into something that treats your product experience and satisfaction as important.
It’s fascinating how it switches that off for non-paying users. Not a lot of companies’ services do that so obviously and blatantly.
In other words, when YouTube is being watched for free, they have that typical engagement incentive: keep you watching as long as possible, watch as many ads as possible, etc.
When you’re paying? Who cares, skip the content if you want. Use Gemini to summarize it, we don’t care if you watch the video.
That is quite deliberately YouTube’s fault. It only occurs with an ad blocker (VPN is irrelevant here, though it might be rolled out only in some countries), and the “experiencing interruptions?” thingy links to an article basically telling you to disable your ad blocker.
I'm pretty sure that skip ahead is deliberately broken to satisfy advertisers.
Sponsorblock has zero issue jumping to the precise moment after the sponsor vs jump ahead always leaves just enough time to still hear the name of the sponsor.
100%. YouTube makes the skip button appear a few seconds after the start of the sponsored segment, and ends the skip a few seconds before the end of the sponsored segment.
That's their choice, and it's deliberate – it gives enough of a window for advertisers to get their message across, while still selling Premium users the notion that they've 'avoided' the ad.
>* Ads underneath videos for products from the channel owner.
>
>* Sponsorships within videos from the channel owner.
I actually agree this is a bit annoying, but also the alternative is Google banning Youtubers from finding their own advertising partners, which I'm sure people would hate.
I'm sure content creators would hate it because they would make less money. Billions of YouTube users around the world would be very happy.
To be clear, I'm not opposed to the practise, as long as that's clear up front. YouTube advertises Premium as an ad free experience, and in reality it's full of ads.
Do they not have a little sponsor skip thing? Where like if many people skip a segment, itll pop up like hey, wanna skip? I mean, thats about all they can do besides forcing youtubers to disclose exact segment lengths which would concretely hurt them whereas this provides a little sort of breathing room, or just straight up ban them, both of which would dramatically hurt the platform.
I understand they have an opt-out feature now. With positive interaction one can skip one sponsored segment (which works most of the time). The problem is that it's not automated. It required digging one's phone out of their pocket, or reaching for the remote. That's still really annoying. To point: it's still full of ads, even if they have the skip button now.
YouTube could tell content creators not to include sponsorships. The terms are long and onerous. Of course content creators would be upset and they would make less money. Ultimately my issue is that YouTube advertises an ad free experience with Premium and it still has a LOT of ads.
I'm in favour of people making money from their work. Maybe I'm old fashioned that way. IMDB, Duolingo and Wikipedia have encouraged the model of using unpaid labour.
YouTube isn't paying people properly, despite its vast revenues. At least with sponsorship the people themselves make some money.
YouTube is part of Alphabet, one of the biggest corporations in the world. It can easily afford to pay people. It isn't co-operation, it's a corporation which takes the work of other people and makes lots of money off them, without paying them properly (or at all in many cases). Wikipedia's content is used by LLMs and other such outlets who also profit off unpaid labour.
It is a basic right of people to be able to afford to live. It's easy to work for free when you have family money but you cannot support yourself when you don't.
I'm not saying this is the way to go, but damn do I miss the old internet where passionate people presented information for free, at worst showing an affiliate link for an information-related book.
People need to be able to make a living and when this is taken away, the living expenses don't disappear. Most people can't pay for their electricity or food with voluntary work.
The people who were doing this on the early internet were not trying to make a living off of it, they were just doing it because they enjoyed it and wanted to share what they built with the world. If you could cover your server costs then that was considered a win.
> I'm in favour of people making money from their work.
That's completely fair. YouTube offers content creators many ways to do this. For example, they can put content behind a paywall. They can ask for donations. They can ask for memberships. Members get all kinds of fun perks. The part I have an issue with is YouTube advertising an ad free experience with Premium and then allowing content creators to fill their videos with ads.
> YouTube isn't paying people properly
I hope we can both agree that the solution to this is YouTube paying people properly, and not allowing content creators to shit all over viewers. That's pitting the little guys against each other while Google laughs all the way to the bank.
You have to put in a disproportionate amount of work to get anything back. Almost no one makes money off a single video, but instead you make a string of videos and get a following. (The cases of a single video making money are few and far between.)
You don't get hourly pay for it, it's vaguely commission based and you do all your own promotion. They can demonetise you at a whim and refuse to pay you (I've seen this happen to craft channels and other content that wasn't remotely controversial.)
>I hope we can both agree that the solution to this is YouTube paying people properly
The solution is proper competition to google. Because Youtube is pretty much the one true monopoly out there. But as we all know, video hosting alone is very,very, very expensive. It really is something you need to be a billion dollar company to do, and Youtube wasn't profitable until like... 2 years ago?
So I tolerate the user ad reads as the best compromise because nothing else would work. I don't think Youtube is a model where Google is being greedy so much as practical. At least not in how it monetizes creators (there's plenty of hostile means they do to creators as is, but the monetary structure seems fine).
There are alternative streaming platforms, but many of them have become associated with certain political viewpoints.
There is also a very limited range of content on Odyssee, Bitchute and all the rest. If you want to find music tutorials for example, you're unlikely to.
> To be clear, I'm not opposed to the practise, as long as that's clear up front. YouTube advertises Premium as an ad free experience, and in reality it's full of ads.
I think it's clear. I don't want YouTube going in and editing movies and creator videos removing any form of advertising. Maybe you want them deleting that content. But the average person realizes what Premium means by no ads. Being obtuse or willfully ignorant isn't reasonable.
no it wouldn't, such things are straight up illegal in most places? You have to clearly disclose ads + have clear distinction between ad content and rest of content. A bunch of youtubers have gotten in trouble for this?
I worked on Prime during the rollout of Prime Video and shortly after (maybe a year or so) pre-roll for other Prime Video content was inserted. I brought it up in a meeting with our org (but the Amazon Video team wasn’t present) and one of our business guys shrugged it off as not interrupting content, blah, blah, blah. I said the agreement was ad-free content, not uninterrupted content. The conversation stopped and nothing was done.
I worked on backend subscription management and the implementation of benefits. The team that business guy worked on was the group eventually at the center of the predatory subscription issue (I can’t say whether they were still around when that happened or not).
Pro tip. Ublock origin gets you that mostly ad-free experience you were hoping for. Donate the money you save from the YouTube premium sub to ublock origin instead.
uBlock Origin + SponsorBlock is the only way YouTube is even remotely watchable these days. Even still, it's not really worth it. I frequently find it better to spend my time doing anything else.
"Ad free" meaning we do not insert ads seems like a reasonable standard to me. The alternative of policing creator content is kind of untenable since it destroys the economics for the creators and there's so much grey area.
I'd pay $20 / month for a Youtube subscription with no ads or sponsored content. Unfortunately even with sideloading on iOS there's no alternative live youtube vanced.
I mean, the stuff that's in the video is not really under Google's control.
Are you suggesting that the burden should be on channel owners to upload variations of their videos that don't include sponsor blocks? That's a bit onerous. My commercial agreement is with YouTube, not with the video creator.
If you don't like ads from creators, don't watch those channels?
YT Premium does provide the "skip ahead" functionality that almost always jumps over sponsor blocks.
I will say I've been a YT Premium subscriber for years and I've never seen any ads for other Google services in my feed, and I don't get advert emails either.
> I mean, the stuff that's in the video is not really under Google's control.
It is completely within Google's control. They have a hundred pages of terms of services, dictating everything the content creators may and may not do and say, down to individual words, symbols, and opinions. If Google wanted to, they could tell content creators to stop adding sponsorships. I understand you'd make less money.
> If you don't like ads from creators, don't watch those channels?
I stopped paying YouTube and I use SponsorBlock now. You're not entitled to my time or attention or money.
The problem is ultimately that Google advertises an ad free experience, which it's not. I'd be willing to pay for an ad free experience.
> You're not entitled to my time or attention or money.
Ahhh but you're entitled to someone else's hard work in producing the content you watch, and god forbid they'd be entitled to compensation for that work.. Got it..
> Are you suggesting that the burden should be on channel owners to upload variations of their videos that don't include sponsor blocks?
No, just mark the sponsored segments, so YouTube can skip over (like SponsorBlock does). And they already pay more per view from Premium users vs ad-supported ones, so it just makes sense to skip ads in the video as well.
That being said, I think paying creators directly is more sustainable in the long term.
That's like complaining you purchased netflix subscriptiomn without ads and saw a product placement ad in a movie. I guess you want netflix to not show the movie, start cutting up the movie or ask that the movie be remade without any products.
YouTube sponsor segments are not subtle “place a Coke can facing the camera” integrations. They are dedicated ad segments with scripted (typically by the advertiser) promotions, often entirely unrelated to the video or channel.
To the end user they are indistinguishable from other video ads on the platform except the ad read is often (not always) done by the creator.
I don’t have hard data on the ratio but it’s not uncommon for a 10 minute video to have 1-2 minutes of full-interrupt ad segments embedded in the video.
It helps but I understand that it's not automatic. Is that correct? If so it significantly undermines the functionality. SponesorBlock automatically removes ads. Meaning I don't have to scramble to open my phone or find the remote every time I don't want to hear/see an ad. That opt-out UX likely means most people ultimately watch the sponsored content.
It could be that this is a phased approach so as not to anger their creators too much.
For me personally it is as easy as pressing one button on the remote. But I don't put on videos in the background very often.
Worth noting is that there are thousands of high quality YouTube channels without any sponsored content. So those are effectively completely ad free with Premium.
I’ve been a paying customer of Dropbox’s consumer plan for over a decade. Each time I visit their website I am greeted with a full page modal ad asking me to upgrade to a different plan I have no use for.
I’ve dismissed it every time. I don’t mind being shown that ad once. But it bothers me that they don’t care enough about my experience using their product to provide a “never show this again” option.
Or just use some metrics to know that if I dismiss it 50 times then maybe I’m not interested.
This is a bigger problem than it may appear. The business lifecycle is well understood, whereby a company innovates, expands, and then when it has a sufficiently large customer base, it monetises. I.e. it enshitifies its products - making them more expensive over time relative to the value. This process is death by a thousand cuts. A PM might see that having the modal you hate show every time you load the site increases conversion by 3%. That's $1M ARR you just made the company! Wow! You get a bonus and a promotion! The problem is you erode customer sentiment by some undefined unit. Many people think NPS measures this, but it doesn't. That measures how many people love and hate the product. It omits the vast majority of people in the middle. They just add it to the increasing list of annoyances until one day there are so many annoyances that they leave. At that time it's very difficult for the company to understand why the user churned. It wasn't any one thing. It was a concerted effort over years to squeeze every cent out of the user at minimum cost.
> At that time it's very difficult for the company to understand why the user churned. It wasn't any one thing.
It's very easy to know for people inside the company who actually care about the product and for their clients. It is really hard for directors and VP that anything they understand are numbers.
If I say "hey this modal/pop up is making customers angry" they are going to ask how much they care (is there even an unit for that?) and how much revenue is lost. The only way for them to handle a project is creating a goal for next Q and assigning people, when in most cases what you need is actually the opposite.
The problem is not that no one knows how to fix it, the problem is that managers organize around big problems and become useless at improving the small things or details. They become blind. It happened to me 100 times. They do not want things to be fixed unless there's a clear revenue increase, which is stupid.
I get super bent out of shape when Apple TV+ advertises shows before the one I am trying to watch; even sometimes advertising the show that I am trying to watch itself and spoiling things.
I have actually cancelled my subscription because of this.
I've talked to Apple support about this. Their website says...
Apple Originals are always commercial-free.
But you are forced to watch ads for other shows before viewing an Apple original. The support person said that because the ads are before the show you are trying to watch, that the show itself is indeed commercial-free. Language lawyering at its finest.
Yeah, I actually canceled Netflix when they started making it impossible to look at the available shows without seeing previews of each of them. I am trying to leisurely decide what I want to watch, not have 15 different actors scream catchphrases at me.
My journey went from downloading movies and TV shows to paying for Netflix, Apple, and Prime. Then back to torrents to avoid all the trailers and ads and curated feed. It's so peaceful now.
Good for you. It's impressive how many get jerked around but don't do the obvious thing and cancel the damn service. More people should feel outraged and insulted by these shenanigans.
Well, you'd be surprised how annoying it is to be a curmudgeon these days.
You can't even find wired (aux) headphones... So tempering expectations when you finally decide to "go back" to simple things is required.
I like to buy my media rather than pirate (I am a man of means after all) but I can't even buy modern media.. Silo, Ted Lasso, Severance and Slow Horses do not have purchasable releases at all. At least some Prime TV shows have blu-ray releases I suppose.
I grew up with the Disney channel on cable as a kid in the 90s. Disney channel at that time was ad-free except for cross-promotions for other Disney channel shows, most of which I (as a kid who liked the Disney channel) wanted to know more about. I have HBO Now/max/go/whatever and before most shows there’s a skippable promo for HBO stuff. So yeah, I don’t think this is new and Disney+ as it is now is way more ad-free than either of those, so I’m not surprised they are trying to nudge the status quo back to a historical equilibrium; it’s just what these companies do
I’ll always pay more to see fewer ads. My kids see far, far, far fewer ads than I and my peers did growing up watching linear TV in the 90s and I’m going to keep it that way. If Disney+ gets in the way of that I’ll stop paying them and stop using their service, easy as that.
Anyone that doesn't see the obvious play here probably wasn't alive when cable was the "ad free" tv option.
These media companies cannot help themselves. Advert money is very tantalizing and they'll always want to find ways to sneak it in whenever and wherever they can.
> My kids see far, far, far fewer ads than I and my peers did growing up
But now these are targeted ads based on browsing data for ad profiles linked to your IP and devices. IMO just a few of these are far worse than the general run of commercials we used to have on TV. Corporations obviously think so too otherwise we would still have that.
I remember those days, and when Cartoon Network was the same. I didn't mind it then because, like you, I found the promos were a great way to know what was on the channel at different times. Especially in the age before on-screen guides.
But there are a few crucial differences between then and now: The ad spots were there to keep the timetables accurate, which is no longer necessary. They also served as a way to let you know what else was on the channel, which again is no longer necessary because that app opens to a menu of all available programming. And, now this is the important part, back then I wasn't specifically paying for ad-free access.
Anyway, I guess what I'm saying is, my Jellyfin server is about to get much more use.
I agree. I noticed recently an ad directly inside of 1Password. I’ve paid for a 1Password subscription since 2013, and have had a family plan for many years. I know the company changed hands several years back after AgileBits sold to VC, but this type of disrespect caused me to cancel my membership. There are plenty of alternatives that haven’t turned their focus to the “Enterprise” and aren’t trying to extract as much money as possible from their paying customers.
What would you say is comparable experience wise to 1Password? I’ve found particularly the 1Password Family plan there’s not really a good alternative of rolling with KeepassX, Bitwarden, etc.
The answer could be nothing and I still respect the choice to speak with your wallet.
Bitwarden, while not quite as polished, works well. If you have your own server at home you can even self-host, which I do. It's an open source server side app called Vaultwarden [https://github.com/dani-garcia/vaultwarden] which connects to the Bitwarden app.
I think the iCloud password manager also works pretty well, provided you're using Apple products.
The BBC in the UK makes a great play of having "no ads" but 6Music (their indie music station) has constant cross-promotions interrupting the music, sometimes for jarring TV murder shows. Cross-promotion is just as annoying as ads for insurance, I hate it!
Yeah, those kinds of ads are always aggravating to me because you’re not even making money by showing them to me. They feel like a display of power more than anything else.
Yes I see those, and adverts for other services (watch this program etc) as adverts.
I don’t see adverts embedded in content as adverts. Be sure I’m watching the World Cup on bbc and see an advert on the players shirt doesn’t mean I want my money back, I’d rather we had no adverts, but it’s not unreasonable.
You are implying something false. That he’s suggesting thats not an ad. Hes not suggesting that at all.
What he’s suggesting is that that’s very different from Disney gating or interspersing movies with ads. Which it is. You may disagree with that but you’re strawmanning him.
One of the most egregious examples of this that's happened to me was with the DVD set of the second or third season of Mad Men. One of the unskippable pre-menu ads was for the next season.
And I didn't know what to say. Either I like the series and I'm going to buy the next season or I don't and I won't.
I may be an outlier but I don't really mind being shown a relatively short ad before watching something. I'm almost never really paying attention yet anyways. Like yes, I'd prefer it not to exist but it doesn't cause me to get into a fit of rage.
But ads in the middle of something I'm watching? Fuck right off with that.
People turned a blind eye to Apple advertising it's own services in it's products for years. I saw people defend here, on HN. So, while yes, it's advertising, Disney is far from the first to do this.
I'm not saying it's right, only that people who claim to be opposed to ads are accepting of the type of ads we are discussing.
> if I'm on the highest paying ad free plan, what are they promoting to me?
I'm assuming they aren't showing you ads for the plan you are on.
An add, but no more than catching a glimps of a restaurant long after one has ordered. When standing in a shop it is normal to see prices for other products on offer.
In case folks aren't aware, Disney tried to avoid an allergy-related wrongful death lawsuit from a restaurant at Disney Springs (large publicly available outdoor mall that doesn't even require tickets) because a couple had a Disney+ streaming trial:
>they clearly would have tried to use it in any situation where they had potential liability.
That's just how lawyers work. They'll try to invoke any defense that's vaguely applicable, just like any plaintiff lawyer will try to invoke any cause of action that's vaguely applicable, like the plaintiffs in this exact case.
The TOS argument was so awful it deserves some kind of bonus loss, but let's put that aside for now.
Let's say I paint a fence, and my neighbor complains I ruined a particular segment that shouldn't have been painted. Why can't I argue that this segment was on my property and that my neighbor gave permission to use that paint on all segments on their property?
Let's say there's a 15% chance the survey was wrong about the fence location, and a 15% chance the court disagrees with how I'm interpreting the agreement. If I can use both arguments I have a 2% chance of losing, which seems fair to me. Both arguments are reasonable, so why should I have to risk it on only one?
That’s not at all how lawyers or businesses work. The job of the lawyer is to represent the client. Lawyers didn’t ultimately decide to use the ToS in this way, Disney did. Disney estimated the reputational risk and calling attention to their morally (and legally) questionable ToS was worth the risk.
Stop infantilizing these people as if they have no other way to behave. It isn’t a law of nature that companies have to behave immorally. Hopefully you apply that understanding to your own job, too.
They already run ads for Disney parks, Hulu, ESPN, and other Disney owned content in the Premium tier. They just call them promos or sponsorships in the prior agreement.
The new agreement allegedly introduces a third term “advertisements”.
> We’ve clarified that all Service Plans may include: (i) promotional content, (ii) sponsorships, and (iii) advertisements before/after playback of Content and in channels, live/as-live, special events, and any third-party services content.
I say allegedly because I haven’t received any communication from Disney yet but various reporting refers to email people in European markets have received.
I feel like they stopped doing that, but there was definitively ads for other movies and shows because some movies on Disney+, but I haven't seen it in a while. It was pretty badly done, because you'd get confused and assume you'd started the wrong movie, so maybe they rolled it back?
The quoted text is identical to what I have received in an email from Disney+. I only tend to get a month at a time when I want to watch a given show, but if paying doesn't remove adverts, I'm not going to pay.
It sucks that Disney+ cancelled Bobba Fett and other great Star Wars series. One month at a time makes sense especially with the lack of new content that I want.
Ads embedded on the playing field? Sure. Billboards visible or sponsor logos on uniforms? I get it. Actual commercials? This is a solved issue for decades, there are "alternatives" as others have pointed out. This is a "Boiling frog" situation.
No, there's nothing really to do. They aren't producing the feed, they're essentially hosting a stream from another broadcaster.
For instance, if you have Paramount+, you can watch sports broadcast by your local CBS station through it. That station is going to be running commercials, Paramount+ has no input on it. The most they can do is run ads over their ads.
I'm assuming there's something similar with Disney+. You can watch your local ABC broadcast or ESPN broadcast of a game, but you're just getting that broadcast as being currently aired.
But even for broadcasts wholly owned and controlled by a streaming platform, like Thursday Night Football on Prime, there are just times when it would be dead air. I don't entirely mind commercials in that instance. Nothing else is going on.
Let’s reverse the situation, they were able to add ads to sport events, so they can definitely remove ads and show the main event cameras if they wanted to. But they’re picking up showing ads indirectly through some other service.
I noted that the streaming service, like Paramount+, would be able to overlay their own ads over the broadcasted commercials, but they won't have control over the cameras. That's on the broadcast station, they're the ones controlling the remote production.
Paramount+ can only rebroadcast what my local CBS affiliate is broadcasting.
I think only Netflix and Prime have deals to actually produce sports broadcasts.
> But even for broadcasts wholly owned and controlled by a streaming platform, like Thursday Night Football on Prime, there are just times when it would be dead air. I don't entirely mind commercials in that instance. Nothing else is going on.
I.e. instead of dead air, they could show some live feed in the spot that other broadcasters use for commercials.
What's happening in that time is just random bullshit. They'll run bits on the jumbotron, hold raffles, go play games with people in the stands, etc. All sponsored by "<SO AND SO>, the official <THING> of your <LOCAL SPORTS TEAM>". Or, in other words, ads.
You could show the players and coaches on the sidelines, but that's also rather boring. It'll be a couple of guys shooting the shit on a bench, or a couple of guys hunched over a table, or some guys warming up.
The best thing they can do is like information from other games maybe.
Does uBlock work on commercials aired as part of a stream/broadcast? I don't mean where they interrupt the stream and insert an ad, I mean that it's part of the video produced.
I genuinely don't know and am asking out of curiosity.
I'm unsure. I believe I've seen Telemundo at certain events, but they could have deals to rebroadcast and they'd have the same options as Paramount+. They can run ads over the broadcast ads and swap the audio feed with their own. The broadcast feed should have at the very least; a video feed, a crowd/stadium audio feed, and the commentary audio feed. So they could just not rebroadcast the commentary audio and replace it with their own.
A lot of the ads on the field and perimeter are themselves inpainted. And becoming more and more offensive over time, with animation and flashing and such as technical capabilities improve and viewers become accustomed and don’t revolt.
I'm sure somewhere there's an ad exec ready to rollout personalized in-game ads that say "hey Chris Morgan, try Henson's ball wash!" From data provided by your smart TV and your secret profile from data brokers.
Our research shows that people with peanut allergies buy a lot of candy bars. We want to tap into that market, so we make a product call NoPeanutBars. But making them in a dedicated peanut-free facility costs a lot of money and extra work, and we really can't figure out how to do it. So we just put a disclaimer on the back that says NoPeanutBars may actually contain peanuts. What's the big deal? We don't put the peanuts in there on purpose!
When I watch motorcycle races live on Peacock with my no-ab subscription they just go quiet for the commercial breaks that other providers/plans run. No announcers or on screen displays, but it does keep a live feed or the race. So the whole "we don’t have an alternative" part I do take exception with.
fwiw... I believe Peacock is also allowed to run ads during live events, but at least during my motorcycle races they do not. a couple seasons ago they would go to a peacock banner and not show anything during the commercial breaks, but at some point they switched to just showing the raw video.
I'll be clear that no I didn't - I read the announcement when Disney+ emailed it to me with no further context, plus adding this disclaimer was the reason for the email. So I disagree that this is our fault.
They mailed me too, and I did read it in full. There's a link right there in the e-mail. I read it, and understood it's not at all what everyone here is claiming.
The email contains the full subscriber agreement (which is also the link in the email).
The full text for that section:
All Service Plans may include: (i) promotional content, (ii) sponsorships, and (iii) advertisements before/after playback of Content and in channels, live/as-live, special events, and any third-party services content.
Perhaps you could share, from the email, what you read that everyone else is missing.
I don't mind self-ads especially if its like "Hey we're releasing this new movie in 2 weeks, are you aware?" just so long as I can skip them after the first time, and they are pre-cached when I open the app so you can download my movie / show in the background while this one plays. Guess I'm being wishful about good engineering. ;)
Even that is a bit too much to my taste. For self-promotion pre-roll kind of ads, if I can skip it the first time I see it, and I don’t see it ever again, and I don’t see more than one ad like this per day per series, then I’m reluctantly okay with that.
But ideally, just stick to some non-video recommendation UI during the credits, and let me discover things on your platform by myself otherwise, and don’t get in my way when I’m trying to enjoy the show.
I'd argue that since TiVo, if you're showing ads because "we don't have an alternative", you actually want to show ads or at least won't make any effort to implement a 20 year old technology for the sake of convenience.
When you select play on the media, does that media play, or some other bullshit get inserted first?
Call it what you want, if it's serving me content I didn't ask for, I'm not happy about it, especially if I'm paying extra for them to not do that explicit thing.
Honestly Disney+ app is the gold standard. No auto play like Netflix. Classy and thoughtful design. Amazon is the worst. Those Buy Now buttons on commercials good God what a load of crap.
They could. They won't, because those ads are probably - if you excuse a little Claudish - the load-bearing part of the contract that allows them to show the content in the first place.
(More cynical take: the ads are the whole point, the content itself is just a vector to get those ads in front of people, and prime them to be receptive.)
1. Now you just have a blank screen. Sure some people might like that but others will think there's an issue with the stream.
2. They're purchasing the rights to show the sports stuff, not actually producing it themselves and removing the ads would make the cost of the rights astronomical.
Even when expensive linear TV packages were the norm, they still came with ads. With live TV paying has never negated the need for ads.
1. There doesn’t have to be a blank screen. Major League Baseball’s streaming service, for example, plays highlights or a placeholder video saying a commercial break is in progress.
2. What? They own ESPN which is producing the content, right?
Baseball literally has an ad-free tier for its live streaming service. I’m sure it’s not the only live service that does.
None of your points seem well considered. Why run interference for these companies?
I'm not familiar with MLB, only with NBA. But even their "ad-free" really isn't - there are still ad banners inside the arenas, on the court itself, and on the jerseys, the announcers often read ads ("this segment was brought to you by ..."), and if there is arena feed during the regular breaks, the in-arena events like a half-court shot are often sponsored as well. Plus there's standard service ads that announce next games.
Unless MLB blurs/bleeps all of these, it's not really ad-free.
1. I hate the MLB one the most. I'm international so maybe it works differently but each season they come up with these horrible clips that they play on repeat. Sometimes it's a little short history snippet or this season some stuff about food. Problem is they have minimal content and so many breaks that by day two of the season they're tortuous. I'd rather have ads.
2. It probably depends on what sports we're talking about. Again, I'm thinking internationally where they've started showing La Liga this season.
> 1. Now you just have a blank screen. Sure some people might like that but others will think there's an issue with the stream.
NASCAR has a separate feed for international broadcasts without their ads. During the ad break they'll just show an overhead camera or maybe an in car camera.
Yeah I'm familiar with that. I guess it all depends on the sport and country. Ads during the sport is quite unusual in the UK for example so we get that NASCAR feed where the camera continues with no commentary during US ad breaks. We also have a cool setup for Indycar where a local UK commentator jumps in to talk over the feed while the US goes to a break. For MLB (on their own league pass product) we get a blank screen or non-ad montage thing in between innings (although as I mentioned in another comment that's its own kind of hell).
Well they do have an alternative. ESPN and I'm sure plenty of other live events will often play ads. But if you have a pihole or some issue that causes the ad not to play, the screen will just display something like, "Ad cannot be loaded. Event will resume in 1 minute and xx seconds."
Is that a GREAT alternative to seeing an ad? Nope. But in many peoples opions it sbetter than being force fed the same ads over and over when you paid for an ad free service.
And if you read the wiki in full you will see it also is talking about preroll content. I dont HATE the HBO pre roll ads for their own shows that play before I start an episode but it is still an ad. Its for content I might actually enjoy instead of for paper towels or insurance but it is still an ad. This is something that is entirely optional and that disney/hulu has decided doesnt count as an ad.
All that matters is the actual agreement. The agreement says there's an exception where "streaming rights or other limitations require certain Content to play with ads," and that "no ads" and "ad-free" tiers can contain "limited promotional content," with some examples of what "limited promotional content" might include, but no actual restrictions on it.
That's extremely broad. They won't show you ads, unless "other limitations require" them to? Would "our internal agreement between our streaming division and our content division requires ads" qualify? What would qualify as "promotional content" and in what sense is it "limited"?
This reads to me as "we can show ads anywhere we feel like it even if you paid us not to have ads." The only actual limitation will be their desire not to piss off paying subscribers.
Those are definitely ads and definitely not what I want out of a streaming service I am paying for. This is why I don't use Amazon Prime Video much, even Apple TVs subtle ads for other programs are distasteful and I get Apple TV for free, it still pisses me off.
In every large org, including disney, there are people who will fuck with you to the full extent of the terms and laws if they think it can increase profit... they do not care about quality, experience, or morals. I've fought these people about marketing emails at dozens of orgs as a consultant.
I guarantee they will eventually use this to show more ads. The goldfish grows to fit its bowl.
That's why I don't really care that much about terms and conditions. Just because they say they can doesn't mean that they will, conversely, the writing can be misleading to anyone who isn't a specialized lawyer, so most people can't really tell what the terms and condition let them do anyways.
I usually go for reputation and precedent rather then legalese. And in the case of Disney, they had ads in their video tapes and DVDs, so I don't need to read the user agreement to know that it has a good chance to come to Disney+, whatever the legal pathway is.
look we know 99% of people hate being tracked but we need the data to see if 0.1% or 0.5% people are clicking the links, you've got to be a team player here
Boohoo the billion dollar giant can't do the same thing that regional sports have been doing for the last 20! years with the likes of NFL and Baseball.
Words matter. Words in advertising should matter. The slope is ice when we allow corporations to wordsmith around what they sell you.
> Also we might try to promote different tiers of Disney+ itself within the app so to the extent you see that as an ad, that’s an exception to ‘ad-free
I don't like when I press play and an advertisement starts for some other freshly released content on the same platform.
Advertising is just a front for the surveillance capitalism/state and the one of foundation to the digital prison system. Of course they want ads on your devices.
It's worse than that. Advertising is a vector for dumping who-knows-what into our minds. Would you let random corporate sponsors put whatever they wanted into your food after you'd already put in the work to choose what you're eating?
To me, my time has value, and my thoughts have more. A party whose goal is to interfere with both, and who actively schemes to interfere with the integrity of both is not merely greedy, they are a hostile actor.
There are a few cases of ads that might not be practical to remove, though most of that would be more like sponsors and ad content that is a part of the show. You can certainly get live sports without ads, though you will of course still have the pauses in the game that allow the ads in the first place. But it's not unusual to see e.g. the halftime in soccer filled with analysis on public television that doesn't allow ads in that circumstance.
In most of these cases, you will see a place like D+ carry the same announcers as the TV station. Here Inbet it would be ESPN crews. So having a different, special crew just for ad breaks would not be exactly great. And given the density of ads in, say, the Super Bowl, you would be hard pressed making this a good experience.
Me: it’s disturbing we don’t know why this pile of numbers we made seems to *think* in a way previously only done by humans. I think it’s important that we understand this better if possible.
You: we don’t really need to know why that happens.
We do understand "thinking" though. That's literally the whole point of Attention is All You Need, the attention mechanism is what separates the transformer architecture from other neural networks. It's well worth a read if you haven't gone over it yet.
Features like chain-of-thought, long-horizon contexts and RoPE/YaRN all extend this thinking capability very transparently. The only remaining thing to study is the data and weights, which probably isn't going to contain some sort of miraculous revelation.
Attention is at about the same level of abstraction as spike trains or action potential, IMO. It’s a mechanism, it doesn’t tell you much at all about how actual concepts get represented. (It merely defines the substrate with which they can be represented.)
The entire field of Mechanistic Interpretability exists because just understanding Attention does not in any way help you to understand why a certain NN responds with a certain hallucination about a certain Chinese boat in this specific context.
> The only remaining thing to study is the data and weights
To me this is like saying “the only thing left to study in the brain is the connectome; probably going to be boring, we understand it already”. It’s almost all of the hard/meaningful stuff! It’s where intelligence and consciousness lives!
The entire field of mechanistic interpretability has gotten nowhere. The formalized, "causal" understanding of latent space conceptualization isn't any better than an LLM cargo cult.
It's wholly possible that you could study one set of weights for decades, and find nothing. There's no guarantee that any patterns outside of human language exist in that data. In this specific context, it's satisfying enough to state that [Chinese] and [boat] were both tokens in the tokenizer, activated by a feedforward pass through weights that favor [boat] after [Chinese]. There's not any guaranteed solution to this. There's not even any guaranteed problem; that hallucination is an expected behavior.
We know why it looks like cognition. Because OpenAI and Antropic put a lot of effort and training to humanize the output and make it sound like a person.
Regardless of negative consequences it brings. They have that project of creating tech god which will save the unborn people thousands years in the future ... so people living now dont matter.
“Putting a lot of effort and training” into a dog or an inanimate carbon rod would never result in something that can plausibly substitute for human mental labor and looks likely to eventually surpass us at many tasks, no matter how much you put in.
So I don’t think “labs worked hard” is the same thing is “we know scientifically how these things work in any real level of detail”. The ability to build a thing, even if building it is hard, is not the same thing as understanding of what the thing is or how it works, not even a little bit.
I’m shocked how many otherwise well-informed people don’t understand or agree with this very fundamental fact of just how little we actually understand about why LLMs work as well as they do. They figure “it’s science, of course there’s math and theory behind it.”
AI research is almost as purely empirical as the gradient descent loops its practitioners use to optimize their models. “Why” anything at all works is barely an afterthought.
That's a very different claim from being "poorly understood" though. The emergent properties of any system with billions of parameters is hard to understand completely, that's the fault of data science more than computer science or even mathematics.
I disagree, because you can represent the constituent parts of any AI model as code and data. We can reliably build AI with this knowledge, but not brains.
Understanding does have layers, and that's why "poorly understood" is a meaningless goalpost. A book can be well understood without researching the gematria behind character's the names when you write them in reverse. An LLM can be well-understood even if you don't comprehensively test each quantization for miraculous unexpected behavior at the FFN level.
A book can be poorly understood if you know it's made out of paper and ink, but can't read. The contents would be recognizable but are meaningless symbols and numbers. You might note that some patterns of symbols repeat, but be completely clueless why or what it represents.
Being able to put a PC together doesn't mean you understand computers. If I ask you to make me a computer that runs a wristwatch, you'll likely be lost unless you have very specialized understanding.
I think we actually all know what "poorly understood" means. There's no need to play tedious semantic games.
The semantic game occurred when someone was equivocating "LLMs are poorly understood" with "brains are poorly understood", which are worlds apart in the extent to which they are "not understood".
“equivocating” is not the word you meant to use here. Probably “equating” I suspect. But yes, I stand behind my claim and I deny that it’s a semantic game. The two areas are not identical in human understanding but they’re on the same order.
It’s likely that at some point we will also be able to represent a scan of the human brain digitally as code and data. Assuming we don’t separately make a huge number of leaps in neuroscience which are far from assured, it will be very likely that we can get the appearance of an operational human brain simulated digitally well before we gain much if any understanding of why it does what it does.
All that is to say, being able to build something is not not not the same thing as understanding it.
If you are serious, comparing how well we understand the brain vs how well we understand LLMs, .. it's not a stretch simplifying that to "we don't understand brains, we do understand LLMs".
Because the extent to which we don't understand the brain, is quite overpowering.
Some people forget that when they say "but it's not different from what a human does" ...
I am absolutely serious. I agree with you that the extent to which we don’t understand brains is overpowering. And I would stand by the proposition that “we don’t understand LLMs in almost exactly the way we don’t understand brains”.
We know lots about human development and genetics and biology and evolution and neuroscience and the physics of how brains are connected and send signals and how generally they are put together and have names for their parts and all that, but we’re clueless when it comes to “the hard question” of how qualia and consciousness emerges from that.
The scenario with the spooky simulation of thinking that emerges from LLMs is in the same category, with different details. Lots of knowledge about the substrate of the phenomenon, little to none about the much bigger question of how we get the appearance of cognition from these trained artifacts.
Clearly we understand extremely well how LLMs are created mechanically. We invented them and are currently putting massive amounts of work into studying and improving them. But that work is perforce largely empirical; figuring out the why once again eludes us. It just goes to show how mysterious the underlying phenomenon of cognition is.
I'm not following you here, you seem to be conflating LLMs ability of language use with the brain's ability of thinking and cognition?
Are you saying that thinking and cognition requires language use? Cause I think not.
Or are you saying that language use is sufficient for cognition and thinking? Cause I'm also not convinced of that.
What I am convinced of, is that a machine capable of language use is capable of tricking people into believing there's a "there", there. In pretty much the same way as the famous supra-normal stimuli experiment made baby seagulls believe that a stick with a red dot was their parent. It's exploiting our instincts.
> I’m shocked how many otherwise well-informed people don’t understand or agree with this very fundamental fact of just how little we actually understand about why LLMs work as well as they do.
Well-informed people understand that LLMs work as well as they do for the same reasons as horoscopes, fortune-telling and homeopathy.
> as purely empirical as the gradient descent loops
Are you suggesting that gradient descent is an empirically found and not understood technique? It was originally proposed by Cauchy in 1847, its properties are very well understood.
You might be referring to properties of the domains its being applied to.
I’m not saying gradient descent was empirically discovered, I’m saying that its use in machine learning (or elsewhere, I suppose) is itself a form of empiricism in that what it is is essentially a repeated observe/measure error/adjust cycle.
> I’m not saying gradient descent was empirically discovered, I’m saying that its use in machine learning is itself a form of empiricism. A repeated observe/adjust-based-on-data cycle
The data is the input, the output is to generally find the lowest amount of a loss function. It’s a greedy approach because brute forcing is inefficient.
It’s no more empirical than a greedy algorithm for scheduling.
> It’s no more empirical than a greedy algorithm for scheduling.
Right, GP is drawing a distinction between search, ie mechanical exploration of a space, with understanding, ie having a map of the territory such that you don’t need trial and error.
> its use in machine learning (or elsewhere, I suppose) is itself a form of empiricism in that what it is is essentially a repeated observe/measure error/adjust cycle.
"Empiricism" implies that the technique is based on observable, but not mathematically proven foundations. If a problem space is convex, gradient descent is guaranteed to converge to a global optimal solution, regardless of whether you know the exact formulation of the space.
Applying it when you don't understand if a space is convex is another question, but that's not a fault of gradient descent.
This would sound insane to me from two years ago but I have recently started insisting on writing all my own commit messages and pull request descriptions. I do usually have an agent review them for factual accuracy, but not rephrase them.
It slows things down a bit, but in the best possible way. It has helped immensely to improve the depth of my understanding of the agent-generated code. When agents are doing everything its way too easy to “skim” diffs and not really absorb them.
I always prided myself on my technical writing, and commit messages and PRs were a great place to hone that skill. I found that I missed it and my work is better now I’ve reclaimed that part of my old job back.
A big win of LLMs in my book is the absolute reduction of commit messages with just “fixes” or “updates”. Commit messages have become more meaningful and useful, even if far from perfect.
We have one dev who uses LLMs to write the code, but still commits by hand. Most of his messages are of the type above, and none of them are useful.
I think that the idea of generating a commit message based on the content (diff) of the commit is fundamentally wrong.
Even before coding harnesses become mainstream, a lot of tools offered to automatically generate commit messages based on the diff (I think JetBrains IDEs started to offer it very early) and I always cringed when I've seen it.
The reason why I don't like diff-base commit messages is because they are redundant. If I want an LLM-generated summary of the diff, I can easily generate it myself, there is absolutely no reason to put it in the commit message.
What I would like to see in the commit message is some additional context that is not a part of the diff. I don't need to read what has changed, because I can already can see it in the diff (or get an LLM to summarize it for me). But I often do need to understand why this change was made. What were they trying to achieve? That's the important part that is not contained in the diff itself. And this is the part that diff-base commits rarely contain.
I think that even something simple like a link to a Jira (or other bugtracker ticket) is much more helpful than diff summary. Maybe instead of "fix" or "update" you could write just a couple of words about what are you trying to fix and why does it need updated. Still better, than a diff-summary.
This is why, if you have the agent generate the commit message at all, it has to be the same agent that wrote the code, in the same session.
I usually have it lead with a paragraph or two of context on why the change was made (though I often use it as just a tool to turn my rambling on that question into proper English), followed by a couple paragraphs of "abstract" explaining the change (because an LLM-generated summary reviewed by the person who made the commit is better than something which the person reading can get themselves).
I don't see how that would improve the situation? If I do it with the same agent/same context, it tends to just report what it did. Which is the diff, repeated in prose.
The agent is usually told why it was making the change (I at least tend to start my prompts with a description of the problem we're solving), so, if prompted correctly, it can lead with "there was a bug, we root-caused it and here's what the root-cause was", then explain what the fix entailed.
> But I often do need to understand why this change was made.
This is the reason (and IMO the only reason) code should be commented. The why can often be hundreds of characters explaining technical limitations at the time, business considerations, or even just "we know this will break in a non-trivial number of instances but it's an incremental step forward to our end goal so we're just doing it."
I'm not sure that Claude's "Realigned the shape of the load-bearing ownership gate to reduce the blast radius of the design contract; confirmed, not assumed" is more meaningful than "fix".
> I'm not sure that Claude's "Realigned the shape of the load-bearing ownership gate to reduce the blast radius of the design contract; confirmed, not assumed" is more meaningful than "fix".
For PR/commit descriptions, I mainly use Claude Sonnet 4.5. It isn’t perfect, but it produces significantly less of this weird gibberish than 5.x models or even Opus 4.x do
I also use an iterative process in which it writes the description, I read it, and then either manually edit it or ask it to make changes
I use Astra at Very High, and shit is still bad. It doesn't actually understand anything, so it often says things which are clearly not needed to be stated. Recently, I've learned that I have very high standards for these things. For example, "fixes" as a commit msg just is NOT acceptable and would never fly where I work.
A few things, but generally more chain of thought before generating a response. So the model is tuned to think more. Given that what it outputs for this task is a summary of its thinking, tuning it to think more will just make a more verbose, less useful commit message.
Tune your model parameters to what is right for the task, not the highest you can afford.
Astra is such a mixed bag. It makes some amazing reviews and sometimes architecture suggestions that I like. But it’s also lazy and will just make up things.
Have another model (or even another instance of the same model) review the output of the first.
Models will hallucinate. They are also quite good at spotting hallucinations in other models' output (with some more hallucinations thrown in). With a threshold for confirmation, and a few iteration loops, you arrive at a fixed point where every claim is supported.
Honestly you probably want a model that has only been trained on language and literature. Nothing from online discourse.
And even then… writing is personal expression. Here people are talking about commit messages. That’s fine but AI doing writing for anyone and I WILL NOT READ IT unless it’s literally basic tech manual.
We read to hear and engage with people’s thoughts. If someone outsources that to AI then they should be shunned.
So long as there are in fact those things, and so long as it didn't sneak something else in there at the same time, it being just on the knife-edge between sense and word-salad is better than "fix".
Buuuuuut far to often it says it fixed a bug I reported, when it only touched one superficial failure mode rather than the root cause.
Yesterday's issue: Why is zoom/pan randomly failing? It told me it was because it was applying a transformation matrix with every input and sometimes JavaScript gave it a non-invertible matrix (why?) which then propagated NaNs everywhere and you can't update a matrix filled with non-numbers.
Why was it doing that in the first place? Seems to be because it's too motivated to perform quick wins and not sufficiently motivated to do good engineering.
Good thing this was just a game editor. Spiky intelligence: superhuman on some dimensions, total noob on others.
It is, because it includes the key words such as "ownership gate" and perhaps others, which makes it infinitely more informative than just "fix", by pointing at what was in scope, and what wasn't.
I've never had Claude spew that out in a commit message. That being said, I also use my tools properly. Your comment sounds like the type of thing someone who puts "don't make any mistakes" at the end of a prompt and gets upset when it doesn't come out perfect. Like, someone adding "make it better than AAA" is going to do something. At this point, it's really just telling on yourself that this is the output that you get.
Mildly disagree. "Fix" is exasperating but immediately tells me I need to look at the diff. With unconstrained Claude spew, I need to wade through three levels of deep fried LLM-speak before realizing...I need to look at the diff
"Deep fried" is the perfect analogy. LLMs have been trained on themselves so many times that their output is the linguistic equivalent of many rounds of JPEG compression.
I don't get this thread. Just tell the agent to use conventional commit messages and to keep it nice and tight. Are you all just raw dogging agent output with no alignment/conventions?
> Just tell the agent to use conventional commit messages and to keep it nice and tight.
I have this in my claude.md along with guidance on (not) writing comments but it’s still dumps multi-paragraph comments of Claude speak everywhere.
I think a lot of us are talking past eachother, but what I and I think others are complaining about is doing things well, and being minimal. LLMs don’t really do that yet, they can’t look at and simplify a codebase well, even with guidance. They always seem to add rather than subtract. And eventually it becomes an issue. I think they were actually better in this regard with like Opus 4.8, and are now getting even worse (but score better, and are more autonomous).
At home I use Codex, and it’s better as far as language goes at least.
Anyway, it’s like the logic piece necessary to do good work is still missing, and hurt by recent reinforcement fine-tuning. And it leads to massive bloat since more comments = higher scores, but walls of text and the tokens (or cognition if you’re the sad human reading them) aren’t free.
Commit messages as you describe ("fixes", "updates") are inappropriate in any professional context and some coaching should occur to the people doing them.
I have the opposite issue - some of my team members now submit mini-essays generated by the LLM. Like 300-500 word commit messages with everything from the essence of the change up to philosophical design trade off discussions.
Like most writing, what is left out is as important as what is included.
You've gotta be joking. Every AI commit message, summary, and test plan is full of extraneous garbage I didn't need to read (and a lot of it is not understandable)
Fix your harness. Provide rules, format, and good examples.
You probably had those for the humans in your team for when new hurts join, right? Just direct your LLMs to them and you’ll have a much better experience.
Just like you can’t expect a new junior dev to know what to do without direction, the same applies with LLMs.
I can relate to that. Most human commit messages aren't good because the author can't be bothered to write a good one, or doesn't know what a good message is supposed to be, or is bad at writing.
But AI commit messages are still bad. Way too verbose and focused on the wrong level: that of code mechanics. That's just wrong. Messages should focus on the level of intent and design, with the primary purpose being to aid human review. They should include a high level overview of the change, decisions, caveats, information not obvious from reading the diff.
So I wrote a skill that captures these principles and allows the agent to even research past related commits and to ask focused questions in order to uncover the intent rather than guessing and writing a bad one.
Now the AI writes better commit messages than it used to, and even writes better than most humans (who can't be bothered to write a good one). Not better than a good manual message, but you can't have everything.
But sometimes even the good writers are tired or didn't think things through. Being able to compare with the AI's version is still useful.
We have standards we ask devs to follow but I’m not going to make someone go back and change a commit message after the fact. I more care about pull request body copy and I think the rules we have for that have been pretty well adhered too. Don’t even need ai to enforce it.
An LLM can read the diff and do the summary on the fly. What it cannot do, is explain the reason behind a change. That was always that valuable part of the commit msg. The rest can deducted, ofc it's much easier to read a short list or a descriptive title.
Sometimes minimal information is better than extrapolated information, especially when the extrapolation mentally painful to read and has decent probability of being wrong with inaccuracies that waste people's time.
Also:
1. It's often a premature extrapolation from diffs and tickets which you could probably generate later, at need, and likely with even better results.
2. If those commit messages can ever influence future work, then it's just carcinogenic cargo-cult cruft. Pruning outputs (future inputs) is important to prevent weird unwanted drift.
Yeah, I know people who have the same zero-explanation `git commit -mfix` style that they did pre-AI and am baffled. If you can’t be arsed to explain yourself, let the agent do it. It literally takes less work to tell the agent to commit for you and they will always do better than -mfix. I don’t understand it either other than obstreperous “become ungovernable” attitude.
LLMs can provide the intentions of the code they write. To say they can’t is saying that they can’t fix bugs, which they very obviously can do effectively.
So, just tell them to write the intention in the way you want it.
If you are implicitly providing the direction in the prompt, make that explicit - you then it will have the context for the change while working and for the commit message and you’ll likely get a higher quality output.
Disagree. I've seen so many PR slop grenades -- they are essentially unreadable. I'd prefer a paragraph or two human written explanations. I suspect people are just taking the default AI text -- which is way too wordy.
I still manually edit almost every word for utmost precision in anything I expect a human to read since LLM prose is hard to read and often subtly wrong or misleadingly worded (those false contrasts ...).
Commit messages are not exactly in this category for me, I view them mostly as a work log to be later inspected by another LLM to gather context. I do usually review them before approving a given plan, so I do care about their structure and content, but find the LLM sufficiently competent at writing them.
For me, the use-case of commit messages is to help a human discover when some kind of thing might have changed, as distinct from the commits before and after it. Importantly, the human is doing a subjective scan for something that sounds relevant.
If they already knew what function or detail is involved, they would be already be doing a "all commits that touched this line" filter, and my comment about affecting $thing would probably be superfluous.
I also don't need to tell them such details in the commit, because that is better expressed by the actual diff.
So in a sense, I'm trying to provide good keywords, about transactions, errors, logging, button color, whatever.
Using LLMs is like managing people. It’s difficult in some ways and easier in others. You should trust them to a degree but also know what is going on and if you’re “trusting” them out of laziness you’re doing it wrong.
This currently is my team's only AI-use policy and I thik it's working out fantastically.
"No AI PR Descriptions" is a great rule because it does 3 things:
1. It's a hard binary that's easy to recognize and enforce
2. It establishes personal ownership for the submitter, making it psychologically difficult to submit something you don't understand. If a person has to describe what a change does, how, and why, then they must have looked at it and made a real attempt to understand it, because you can't map a territory you have never seen. This alone prevents "claude-code run amok" scenarios where devs have completely abdicated responsibility that are a real pain to clean up.
3. It informs the reviewer of the change's intent. A human PR tells reviewers what a thing is intended to do, as well as the authors belief about what it does, which they can use as a framework to critique the actual substance. It becomes easier to notice missed edge cases, code behavior that subtly differs from intent, or changes that would block off or complicate an intended future project direction or reduce maintainability.
And as a bonus, at time of writing, AI pr descriptions basically always suck. They are usually full of irrelevant implementation details, misplaced emphasis, weird presuppositions that seem to come out of nowhere and are really annoying to read, etc. That won't be true forever, they are always getting better, but it is true now, so that's a temporary 4th benefit.
Our rules are: short title that should match the task in the ticket tracker, link to the task in the body as the first item, pr summary that’s human readable, screenshots of any front end changes at all the breakpoints. The screenshot requirement is huge, it’s caught a lot of people skipping visual testing locally. Even if they have an llm generate the screenshot we know it’s been at least tested by something and allows for a quick check before someone even wastes their time looking at code.
Why do you want to understand the agent generated code though? That would make you the bottleneck. Shouldn’t you just concentrate on checking for optimal outcomes, exhaustively trying to find/prompt edge cases and profiling performance?
Letting agents run wild with a codebase and no humans understanding it is a recipe for disaster across so many axes.
You are not a serious person if you recommend that.
Check back in a couple years and I’m sure they’ll be there but today’s frontier models 100% absolutely are not ready to fully own a nontrivial production codebase with no human involvement.
I do check most of agent code, not because I really care about every tiny detail but to catch if it's going to shoot itself (and my project) in the foot. If I only check the result and it's OK, it still doesn't mean that in two features I won't totally blow up the app.
I'm a happy little bottleneck, what's wrong with that? How do you even know how to ask it to build stuff for you if you don't understand what foundations are you building on?
Writing commit message (aka. what has changed) gives me a sense of control that I know what's happening and I can confidently build the next thing.
Given that we have an embodied intelligence that is capable of being reasonably good at physics, it would be foolish to state categorically that AI can't do physics. I am however skeptical that LLMs can do physics. My experience is that it's really great at doing the stuff I can't be arsed to do, and is therefore very useful, but it has very poor "understanding" of physics
No, that would be a fundamental misunderstanding of the bitter lesson, which is about research bets over time. The object of comparison is the technology, the underlying substrate and fundamental architecture, and how much of it can be offloaded to computation. We're talking about the same architecture here, they're both transformers. The difference doesn't exist in a relevant way to the question.
No. Extradition generally can only occur over conduct that is criminal in both jurisdictions and speech in particular is protected in US extradition agreements.
I’m all for consumer awareness but I’m begging everyone to stop freaking out over prosaic non-issues like this.
reply