6 ms·

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 application

by 013a 9y ago

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 who truly deserved it. [1] https://usedopamine.com/ https://usedopamine.com/ [2] http://youjustneedspace.com/ http://youjustneedspace.com/

Torn 9y ago
100% agreed on the ethics note. Calling it 'dopamine' is also pretty remorseless. Interestingly, the creators of the like button and pull to refresh, and others, are pushing back against this 'attention economy': https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/oct/05/smartphone-addiction-silicon-valley-dystopia https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/oct/05/smartphon...
- RAB1138 9y ago
  Paul (author on that piece) is wonderful! Not so much remorseless, we were just shooting for contrarian and attention grabbing...And here we are....knee deep in front page of HN hate mail...
  - lawnchair_larry 9y ago
    You are making the world a worse place.
  - Grangar 9y ago
    Calling negative comments hate mail speaks volumes about you.
  - ivm 9y ago
    You are building a Zynga-like company and writing vague comments instead of direct answers here. Why do you expect positive replies?
TimTheTinker 9y ago
To be fair, all the case studies they list [1] utilized their service to improve users' personal habits -- diet, exercise, etc. Behavior shaping isn't necessarily morally wrong to use, though companies like Facebook and Google are almost completely incentivized to use them against users. [1] http://www.usedopamine.com/assets/pdf/Dopamine%20Labs%20Case%20Studies.pdf http://www.usedopamine.com/assets/pdf/Dopamine%20Labs%20Case...
- anigbrowl 9y ago
  Well, yeah. They'd be idiots to present it any other way.
- _0ffh 9y ago
  "Behavior shaping isn't necessarily morally wrong to use," as long as we are talking about parents shaping their children, or the justice system (re-)shaping criminal offenders. Beyond that border, in my mind this becomes very unethical indeed!
  - IanCal 9y ago
    Why not people wanting to shape their own behaviour? Nudges to exercise more from an exercise app I've installed is hardly diabolical.
    - mmayberry 9y ago
      you are correct. there is nothing wrong with giving humans the tools they want/need to be the better versions of themselves.
      - 013a 9y ago
        This is such a fine gray line that its impossible to conclusively categorize something as evil vs good. For example: If I decide I want to exercise more, maybe I would appreciate an app which helps me become addicted to exercise. That might be good for me. However, what if the app pushes me to exercise too much, and I begin to experience health problems associated with destroying muscles? Or, what if the app is formed on bad exercise science and it suggests routines that are bad for me? Now suddenly the addictions created by the app are working against me; the app isn't being irresponsible by helping me exercise, but it is being irresponsible by modifying my behavior and decision making processes to favor using it. Similarly, is Instagram "good" for you? Probably not. But, per your comment: "there's nothing wrong with giving humans the tools they want". People might want to be addicted to Instagram; that doesn't mean it is good for them and that Instagram should deliver. People want to be addicted to nicotine and alcohol, so we put regulations around it.
atsushin 9y ago
Their Dopamine service seems much more heinous and detrimental, especially in a society where many social media application's algorithms tailor user's experiences to accustom and promote each individual's personal beliefs for the sake of ad revenue. I imagine the truly unethical could take advantage of this service and develop applications which leverage what our SM platforms are doing currently, and make quite a lot of revenue as a result.
tdaltonc 9y ago
CEO of Dopamine here. 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.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

by 013a 9y ago

Torn 9y ago

100% agreed on the ethics note. Calling it 'dopamine' is also pretty remorseless. Interestingly, the creators of the like button and pull to refresh, and others, are pushing back against this 'attention economy': https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/oct/05/smartphone-addiction-silicon-valley-dystopia https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/oct/05/smartphon...

RAB1138 9y ago
Paul (author on that piece) is wonderful! Not so much remorseless, we were just shooting for contrarian and attention grabbing...And here we are....knee deep in front page of HN hate mail...
- lawnchair_larry 9y ago
  You are making the world a worse place.
- Grangar 9y ago
  Calling negative comments hate mail speaks volumes about you.
- ivm 9y ago
  You are building a Zynga-like company and writing vague comments instead of direct answers here. Why do you expect positive replies?

TimTheTinker 9y ago

To be fair, all the case studies they list [1] utilized their service to improve users' personal habits -- diet, exercise, etc. Behavior shaping isn't necessarily morally wrong to use, though companies like Facebook and Google are almost completely incentivized to use them against users. [1] http://www.usedopamine.com/assets/pdf/Dopamine%20Labs%20Case%20Studies.pdf http://www.usedopamine.com/assets/pdf/Dopamine%20Labs%20Case...

anigbrowl 9y ago
Well, yeah. They'd be idiots to present it any other way.
_0ffh 9y ago
"Behavior shaping isn't necessarily morally wrong to use," as long as we are talking about parents shaping their children, or the justice system (re-)shaping criminal offenders. Beyond that border, in my mind this becomes very unethical indeed!
- IanCal 9y ago
  Why not people wanting to shape their own behaviour? Nudges to exercise more from an exercise app I've installed is hardly diabolical.
  - mmayberry 9y ago
    you are correct. there is nothing wrong with giving humans the tools they want/need to be the better versions of themselves.
    - 013a 9y ago
      This is such a fine gray line that its impossible to conclusively categorize something as evil vs good. For example: If I decide I want to exercise more, maybe I would appreciate an app which helps me become addicted to exercise. That might be good for me. However, what if the app pushes me to exercise too much, and I begin to experience health problems associated with destroying muscles? Or, what if the app is formed on bad exercise science and it suggests routines that are bad for me? Now suddenly the addictions created by the app are working against me; the app isn't being irresponsible by helping me exercise, but it is being irresponsible by modifying my behavior and decision making processes to favor using it. Similarly, is Instagram "good" for you? Probably not. But, per your comment: "there's nothing wrong with giving humans the tools they want". People might want to be addicted to Instagram; that doesn't mean it is good for them and that Instagram should deliver. People want to be addicted to nicotine and alcohol, so we put regulations around it.

atsushin 9y ago

Their Dopamine service seems much more heinous and detrimental, especially in a society where many social media application's algorithms tailor user's experiences to accustom and promote each individual's personal beliefs for the sake of ad revenue. I imagine the truly unethical could take advantage of this service and develop applications which leverage what our SM platforms are doing currently, and make quite a lot of revenue as a result.

tdaltonc 9y ago

CEO of Dopamine here. 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.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]