111–120 of 145 posts
Also, if this is designed to release dopamine or any other neurotransmitters, is there a risk that this will ever be classified as a drug? Or at least be treated legally like a drug?
Is this an accurate framing of your statement then? If we can think of the addictive nature of apps as "brain hacking", you aim to be white hats? Using the same techniques to protect through understanding, instead of attack for personal gain? You say you only work with certain clients based on their ethics. Can you name some examples of an application for this that has the potential to be profitable? I, and it seems…
If everyone in the US has on average 5 apps on their phone which use your service, and it makes people on average engaged for one extra minute... What would the cost be of all the lost productivity? Does the extra engagement lead to more revenue? How do the 2 compare? Also, if this is designed to release dopamine or any other neurotransmitters, is there a risk that this will ever be classified as a drug? Or at least…
This whole topic is gonna be huge soon, it's in the same vein as increased use of gambling style "loot boxes" in video games designed to be skinner-boxes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is how I understand what you're saying: We are building something evil and reprehensible, but we are open about what we are building, and therefore we are better than the other guys who are doing it surreptitiously. Fine, but in that case your product is basically performance art. Bravo, you did a good job raising awareness: now go actually work on fixing the problem instead of pretending like you aren't part of…
Making games more addictive is not really all that "evil" or "reprehensible". It's not much different from making them more fun. What does need work is their messaging. Suggesting they can control users does not sit well. Instead, they could suggest they make games so much more fun, users boost in-game time. They need a lesson on marketing and messaging, the idea itself is fine.
Considering the amount of behavioral science being used to accomplish this, it's actually quite "evil".
As much as we humans fancy our intellect and "free will", we are still just very predictable biological automatons. Put us in a very well designed skinner-box, and we gonna be pushing that button until our body rots away without us even noticing.
There is a very fine line between making something "engaging", for the sake of building something exciting, and making something "engaging" for the sake of keeping "engagement going".
Greaaaaat... Seriously, does humanity really need this?
Yes. See attached. https://youtu.be/Qsi08xvhaQ4?t=4m21s
I think around the 14 minute mark or something you made a statement that people need to be aware of the apps they choose.
Prior to that you had argued that (mostly for the first world) behavioral choices are the root of the major causes of morbidity.
Your redeeming speech comes at around the 20 minute mark.
Issues first:
1) you assume people have a choice - and that inherently Discounts the over size impact of bad actors and antagonists.
This point alone, fundamentally changes the constants underpinning the model you tacitly must be running to support your other predictions.
2) people are terrible at making a lot of choices on average. People choosing good apps over bad is similar to hoping people make good life style choices.
Unlikely, and far too path dependent. Unless you are highly informed, educated about skinner/conditioning and tech aware and cynical - you won’t succeed.
3) a lot of those behavioral problems have arisen from large firms using old school behavioral influencing to create that situation.
There is no basis for hope that more behavioral tools will solve the problem.
20 minutes onwards though, and you have a much better Wicket - at least up to the point I’ve watched.
Which is another thing. Very few people are going to watch a 30 minute video of you speaking, especially when we’re on a text based forum.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Making games more addictive is not really all that "evil" or "reprehensible". It's not much different from making them more fun. What does need work is their messaging. Suggesting they can control users does not sit well. Instead, they could suggest they make games so much more fun, users boost in-game time. They need a lesson on marketing and messaging, the idea itself is fine.
> It's not much different from making them more fun. I've played quite a few games that were addictive but not fun . The difference is hard to spot when you're in the middle of it, but stark from the outside. Typically they start off being plain fun to draw you in, and then gradually segue into addictive after a few hours to keep you there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bruh. Did you even look at the price on Space?
Bruh. Just adding another app to 'counteract' the effects isn't going to suddenly clear you of ethical issues. It's the equivalent of mcdonalds selling salads...
On one hand, it's important we get a better understanding of what makes us tick, on the other hand, I fear what such understanding might enable us to do to each other.
The same company sells an api to help make your applications as addicting as possible [1] and a service for users to help control their addiction to applications [2]. This organization is disgusting and is evidence enough that our industry has no sense of ethical responsibility. When massive regulation lands on Silicon Valley and we whine about the impact it has on innovation, remember companies like Dopamine Labs wh…
We make cars with both gas pedals and break pedals because sometimes you want to go faster and sometime you want to go slower. There are some behaviors that you want to see yourself doing more frequently, and others that you want to see yourself doing less frequently. So we make products to serve both of those use cases.
It can be unnerving to see yourself programable; it affronts our sense of freewill. But once we get to the point that these technologies are possible, the question isn't if to use them, but how. We're trying to lead that conversation. And I am genuinely interested to hear your thoughts on how to use this technology to encourage human thriving.