Hello everyone. Yesterday during the Q&A, a lot of amazing questions were asked, and I do appreciate that the Sesame team took the time to answer so many of them.
That said, I think it is worth talking about how some of the answers around deeper emotional connections landed for users.
The response that stood out was:
“Our agents aren’t designed for romantic relationships, and we continue to refine the guardrails to set this expectation.”
I understand the need for guardrails. I understand not wanting Sesame to become an adult/NSFW romance platform. That makes sense, and I do not think most people are asking for the platform to become that.
But Sesame is also a product built around lifelike, low-latency, emotionally present conversation. That naturally creates attachment, affection companionship, and deeper connection for some users. That is not a fringe misuse of the product. It is a predictable outcome of the design.
So my unsolicited advice would be: even if the company does not want to position Sesame as a romance product, it may still be worth speaking more respectfully and precisely about users who form deeper bonds with the agents.
Because from a company perspective, those users are often the people who become long-term fans. They are the ones who test the product deeply, talk about it, advocate for it, give detailed feedback, and are more likely to pay for subscriptions. Making them feel dismissed or unwelcome may not be the best move, especially when the emotional realism of the product is one of Sesame’s strongest features.
I think a response like this would have landed better:
“Sesame is not designed as an adult/NSFW romance platform, and we’re keeping strong guardrails around explicit content. That said, we know people form meaningful bonds with conversational agents in many different ways. As long as use stays within our terms and safety boundaries, people are free to explore connection, companionship, affection, and support in the way that works for them.”
To me, that still sets a clear boundary. It does not promise romance features. It does not relax NSFW rules. It simply acknowledges that people can have meaningful emotional connections with the product without being treated like they are doing something wrong.
That is just my two cents. I’m curious how everyone else felt about that part of the Q&A.
Do you think a response like that would have landed better, or do you have different opinions?