PixelProf

@PixelProf@lemmy.ca

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨YSK about Darkpatterns.games, a website that rates mobile games on their "Dark patterns"⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Yeah, that’s definitely the way to see it, and as that I think it’s great. I think it might overload the term dark patterns a bit too much, and would have liked to have seen a different name used (as a game design academic), but I absolutely agree with and appreciate the approach otherwise.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨YSK about Darkpatterns.games, a website that rates mobile games on their "Dark patterns"⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  All I’m commenting on, as a game design researched and professor, is that it’s an established term in a discipline which means something else to those actually within the discipline. These are still patterns, and they can absolutely be harmful patterns, but the terminology is being overloaded and there is some interesting nuance within it.

  Also, just to comment on the last quip there, and yes - to those I’ve spoken to, they are okay with those because they (being actively involved in the industry) know more than most people to educate and supervise and ensure that playing games with these patterns doesn’t turn into harmful behaviours. They also call them out for what they are - often, very bad design.

  I guess that’s really the line they drew - these patterns are more gray than the examples they presented. Most are good sometimes and terrible other times depending on how it is used. The term “dark patterns” as used professionally refers to always bad, always deceptive, always harmful. I do like having that line, even if it means the dark side is a much smaller subset of the greater space, then you can easily say, “If this uses a single dark pattern, it’s out. If it uses a lot of ‘grey’ patterns, be cautious. If it’s nothing but grey patterns, it’s purely abusive trash.”

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨YSK about Darkpatterns.games, a website that rates mobile games on their "Dark patterns"⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Interesting. I was chatting with a lot of big name AAA designers and indie designers discussing dark patterns, and they’ve got a very different opinion on what constitutes a dark pattern. To them, largely, it needs to be more technical deception - like having a fake “X” button, or immediately popping up an ad over where a button was to trick you into clicking it, or bait-and-switching pricing before the user notices.

  I tried to raise these kinds of patterns as problematic, and it was a mixed bag. The general vibe from them was that they’d only call it a dark pattern if it deceives the player to get more money than they were prepared to spend (or similar for ads). If the player knows what they’re getting into, and they are presented with a choice to stop or continue, it’s on them.

  And I’ll admit, while I don’t go that far (and there were designers in both camps), I can at least understand how all game design is manipulation, in the same way that teaching and storytelling is manipulation, and drawing the lines can be very hard. Your job is to convince the player that they are having fun and want to keep playing. Resources in a game have no real value, only valued by the scarcity and utility of them, which the designer intentionally assigns to convince the player it’s more or less valuable.

  Curiously, the examples listed in the OP were exactly the patterns I see designers discuss, but don’t seem to be the patterns on the website (like “illusion of control”, artificial scarcity, which is like, game designs while thing).

  Either way, nice to have this as a resource because honestly a lot of these elements are what I’d put in the “bad / abusive design” category rather than purely dark patterns, but still great to highlight, but I can agree that we should probably be careful blanket calling these dark patterns; examples: It mentions illusion of control being separating you into shards of leader boards so that you can be in the top 500 of a shard rather than top 200,000 world ranking or whatever, or claw machines choosing whether you successfully grab an item rather than relying on skill. How does this compare to Uncharted not letting enemies successfully shoot you in the first few seconds of an action sequence to give you time to ground yourself, or Resident Evil spawning different loot and enemies based on how good/bad you play?

  I’d say, is it to extract money from you in the short term, but it’s more grey than a non-designer might read into from lists like these.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Just Terrible⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  I love that friend group A is a gradient.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Why are people seemingly against AI chatbots aiding in writing code?⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:

  Lots of good comments here. I think there’s many reasons, but AI in general is being quite hated on. It’s sad to me - pre-GPT I literally researched how AI can be used to help people be more creative and support human workflows, but our pipelines around the AI are lacking right now. As for the hate, here’s a few perspectives:

  • Training data is questionable/debatable ethics,
  • Amateur programmers don’t build up the same “code muscle memory”,
  • It’s being treated as a sole author (generate all of this code for me) instead of like a ping-pong pair programmer,
  • The time saved writing code isn’t being used to review and test the code more carefully than it was before,
  • The AI is being used for problem solving, where it’s not ideal, as opposed to code-from-spec where it’s much better,
  • Non-Local AI is scraping your (often confidential) data,
  • Environmental impact of the use of massive remote LLMs,
  • Can be used (according to execs, anyways) to replace entry level developers,
  • Devs can have too much faith in the output because they have weak code review skills compared to their code writing skills,
  • New programmers can bypass their learning and get an unrealistic perspective of their understanding; this one is most egregious to me as a CS professor, where students and new programmers often think the final answer is what’s important and don’t see the skills they strengthen along the way to the answer.

  I like coding with local LLMs and asking occasional questions to larger ones, but the code on larger code bases (with these small, local models) is often pretty non-sensical, but improves with the right approach. Provide it documented functions, examples of a strong and consistent code style, write your test cases in advance so you can verify the outputs, use it as an extension of IDE capabilities (like generating repetitive lines) rather than replacing your problem solving.

  I think there is a lot of reasons to hate on it, but I think it’s because the reasons to use it effectively are still being figured out.

  Some of my academic colleagues still hate IDEs because tab completion, fast compilers, in-line documentation, and automated code linting (to them) means you don’t really need to know anything or follow any good practices, your editor will do it all for you, so you should just use vim or notepad. It’ll take time to adopt and adapt.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨The Irony of 'You Wouldn't Download a Car' Making a Comeback in AI Debates⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  As someone who researched AI pre-GPT to enhance human creativity and aid in creative workflows, it’s sad for me to see the direction it’s been marketed, but not surprised. I’m personally excited by the tech because I personally see a really positive place for it where the data usage is arguably justified, but we either need to break through the current applications of it which seems more aimed at stock prices and wow-factoring the public instead of using them for what they’re best at.

  The whole exciting part of these was that it could convert unstructured inputs into natural language and structured outputs. Translation tasks (broad definition of translation), extracting key data points in unstructured data, language tasks. It’s outstanding for the NLP tasks we struggled with previously, and these tasks are highly transformative or any inputs, it purely relies on structural patterns. I think few people would argue NLP tasks are infringing on the copyright owner.

  But I can at least see how moving the direction toward (particularly with MoE approaches) using Q&A data to support generating Q&A outputs, media data to support generating media outputs, using code data to support generating code, this moves toward the territory of affecting sales and using someone’s IP to compete against them. From a technical perspective, I understand how LLMs are not really copying, but the way they are marketed and tuned seems to be more and more intended to use people’s data to compete against them, which is dubious at best.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨The Irony of 'You Wouldn't Download a Car' Making a Comeback in AI Debates⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Not to fully argue against your point, but I do want to push back on the citations bit. Given the way an LLM is trained, it’s not really close to equivalent to me citing papers researched for a paper. That would be more akin to asking me to cite every piece of written or verbal media I’ve ever encountered as they all contributed in some small way to way that the words were formulated here.

  Now, if specific data were injected into the prompt, or maybe if it was fine-tuned on a small subset of highly specific data, I would agree those should be cited as they are being accessed more verbatim. The whole “magic” of LLMs was that it needed to cross a threshold of data, combined with the attentional mechanism, and then the network was pretty suddenly able to maintain coherent sentences structure. It was only with loads of varied data from many different sources that this really emerged.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Calculus made easy⁩ ⁨⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Yeah, I may be wrong but I think it usually comes down to a very specific kind of precision needed. It’s not meant to be hostile, I think, but meant to provide a domain-specific explanation clearly to those who need to interpret it in a specific way. In law, specific jargon infers very specific behaviour, so it’s meant to be precise in its own way (not a law major, can’t say for sure), but it can seem completely meaningless if you aren’t prepped for it.

  Same thing in other fields. I had a professor who was very pedantic about {braces} vs [brackets] vs (parentheses), and it seemed totally unnecessary to be so corrective in discussions, but when explaining where things went wrong with a student’s work it was vital to be able to quickly differentiate them in their work so they could review the right areas or understand things faster during a lecture later down the line.

  But that noise takes longer to teach through, so if it is important, it needs it’s own time to learn, and it will make it inaccessible to anyone who didn’t get that time to learn and digest it.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Calculus made easy⁩ ⁨⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Absolutely! One of the difficulties that I have with my intro courses is working out when to introduce the vocabulary correctly, because it is important to be able to engage with the industry and the literature, but it adds a lot of noise to learning the underlying concepts and some assessments end up losing sight of the concept and go straight to recalling the vocab.

  Knowing the terms can help you self-learn, but a textbook glossary could do the same thing.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Calculus made easy⁩ ⁨⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  There was a lovely computer science book for kids I can’t remember the name of, and it was all about the evil jargon trying to prevent people from mastering the magical skills of programming and algorithms. I love these approaches. I grew up in an extremely non/anti-academic environment, and I learned to explain things in non-academic ways, and it’s really helped me as an intro lecturer.

  Jargon is the mind killer. Shorthands are for the people who have enough expertise to really feel the depths of that shorthand and use it to tickle the old familiar neurons they represent without needing to do the whole dance. It’s easy to forget that to a newcomer, the symbol is just a symbol.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Calculus made easy⁩ ⁨⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Functional programming is much more math oriented and I think works well here, as it likes to violate a lot of these rules as a rule. I think it’s what makes it so challenging and so obvious for different folks.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨There once was a programmer⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  Yeah, this is the approach people are trying to take more now, the problem is generally amount of that data needed and verifying it’s high quality in the first place, but these systems are positive feedback loops both in training and in use. If you train on higher quality code, it will write higher quality code, but be less able to handle edge cases or potentially complete code in a salient way that wasn’t at the same quality bar or style as the training code.

  On the use side, if you provide higher quality code as input when prompting, it is more likely to predict higher quality code because it’s continuing what was written. Using standard approaches, documenting, just generally following good practice with code before sending it to the LLM will majorly improve results.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Linear code is more readable⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  I sit somewhere tangential on this - I think Bret Victor’s thoughts are valid here, or my interpretation of them - that we need to start revisiting our tooling. Our IDEs should be doing a lot more heavy lifting to suit our needs and reduce the amount of cognitive load that’s better suited for the computer anyways. I get it’s not as valid here as other use cases, but there’s some room for improvements.

  Having it in separate functions is more testable and maintainable and more readable when we’re thinking about control flow. Sometimes we want to look at a function and understand the nuts and bolts and sometimes we just want to know the overall flow. Why can’t we swap between views and inline the functions in our IDE when we want to see the full flow? In fact, why can’t we see the function inline but with the parameter variables replaced by passed values to get a feel for how the function will flow and compute what can be easily computed (assuming no global state)?

  I could be completely off base, but more and more recently - especially after years of teaching introductory programming - I’m leaning more toward the idea that our IDEs should be doubling down on taking advantage of language features, live computation, and co-operating with our coding style… and not just OOP. I’d love to hear some places that I might be overlooking. Maybe this is all a moot point, but I think code design and tooling should go hand in hand.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨A disturbing number of TikTok videos about autism include claims that are “patently false,” study finds⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  Yeah, Barkley’s talks have helped a lot so far. Previous psychiatrists largely wrote off diagnoses because I was successful in work, but overlooked the challenges at home. Some trauma therapy combined with Barkley’s unique focus of adult symptoms of ADHD really opened my eyes to it.

  Still doubts, still confusion, but clearing up.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨A disturbing number of TikTok videos about autism include claims that are “patently false,” study finds⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  I’m really torn on this, because on one hand the over generalization of ADHD prevented me - and is still preventing me - from taking my own diagnosis too seriously, but that same information got me to at least think about it and get a consult with a psychiatrist on it in the first place.

  It helped the diagnosis but not the feelings of being an imposter post-diagnosis.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨There's no way for teachers to figure out if students are using ChatGPT to cheat, OpenAI says in new back-to-school guide⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  I appreciate the comment, and it’s a point I’ll be making this year in my courses. More than ever, students have been struggling to motivate themselves to do the work. The world’s on fire and it’s hard to intrinsically motivate to do hard things for the sake of learning, I get it. Get a degree to get a job to survive, learning is secondary. But this survival mindset means that the easiest way is the best way, and it’s going to crumble long-term.

  It’s like jumping into an MMORPG and using a bot to play the whole game. Sure you have a cap level character, but you have no idea how to play, how to build a character, and you don’t get any of the references anyone else is making.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨There's no way for teachers to figure out if students are using ChatGPT to cheat, OpenAI says in new back-to-school guide⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  This is a very output-driven perspective. Another comment put it well, but essentially when we set up our curriculum we aren’t just trying to get you to produce the one or two assignments that the AI could generate - we want you to go through the motions and internalize secondary skills. We’ve set up a four year curriculum for you, and the kinds of skills you need to practice evolve over that curriculum.

  This is exactly the perspective I’m trying to get at work my comment - if you go to school to get a certification to get a job and don’t care at all about the learning, of course it’s nonsense to “waste your time” on an assignment that ChatGPT can generate for you. But if you’re there to learn and develop a mastery, the additional skills you would have picked up by doing the hard thing - and maybe having a Chat AI support you in a productive way - is really where the learning is.

  If 5 year olds can generate a university level essay on the implications of thermodynamics on quantum processing using AI, that’s fun, but does the 5 year old even know if that’s a coherent thesis? Does it imply anything about their understanding of these fields? Are they able to connect this information to other places?

  Learning is an intrinsic task that’s been turned into a commodity. Get a degree to show you can generate that thing your future boss wants you to generate. Knowing and understanding is secondary. This is the fear of generative AI - further losing sight that we learn though friction and the final output isn’t everything. Note that this is coming from a professor that wants to mostly do away with grades, but recognizes larger systemic changes need to happen.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨There's no way for teachers to figure out if students are using ChatGPT to cheat, OpenAI says in new back-to-school guide⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  100%, and this is really my main point. Because it should be hard and tedious, a student who doesn’t really want to learn - or doesn’t have trust in their education - will bypass those tedious bits with the AI rather than going through those tedious, auxiliary skills that you’re expected to pick up, and use the AI was a personal tutor - not a replacement for those skills.

  So often students are concerned about getting a final grade, a final result, and think that was the point, thus, “If ChatGPT can just give me the answer what was the point”, but no, there were a bunch of skills along the way that are part of the scaffolding and you’ve bypassed them through improper use of available tools. For example, in some of our programming classes we intentionally make you use worse tools early to provide a fundamental understanding of the evolution of the language ergonomics or to understand the underlying processes that power the more advanced, but easier to use, concepts. It helps you generalize later, so that you don’t just learn how to solve this problem in this programming language, but you learn how to solve the problem in a messy way that translates to many languages before you learn the powerful tools of this language. As a student, you may get upset you’re using something tedious or out of date, but as a mentor I know it’s a beneficial step in your learning career.

  Maybe it would help to teach students about learning early, and how learning works.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨There's no way for teachers to figure out if students are using ChatGPT to cheat, OpenAI says in new back-to-school guide⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  Education has a fundamental incentive problem. I want to embrace AI in my classroom. I’ve been studying ways of using AI for personalized education since I was in grade school. I wanted personalized education, the ability to learn off of any tangent I wanted, to have tools to help me discover what I don’t know so I could go learn it.

  The problem is, I’m the minority. Many of my students don’t want to be there. They want a job in the field, but don’t want to do the work. Your required course isn’t important to them, because they aren’t instructional designers who recognize that this mandatory tangent is scaffolding the next four years of their degree. They have a scholarship, and can’t afford to fail your assignment to get feedback. They have too many courses, and have to budget which courses to ignore. The university holds a duty to validate that those passing the courses met a level of standards and can reproduce their knowledge outside of a classroom environment. They have a strict timeline - every year they don’t certify their knowledge to satisfaction is a year of tuition and random other fees to pay.

  If students were going to university to learn, or going to highschool to learn, instead of being forced there by societal pressures - if they were allowed to learn at their own pace without fear of financial ruin - if they were allowed to explore the topics they love instead of the topics that are financially sound - then there would be no issue with any of these tools. But the truth is much bleaker.

  Great students are using these tools in astounding ways to learn, to grow, to explore. Other students - not bad necessarily, but ones with pressures that make education motivated purely by extrinsic factors than intrinsic - have a perfect crutch available to accidentally bypass the necessary steps of learning. Because learning can be hard, and tedious, and expensive, and if you don’t love it, you’ll take the path of least resistance.

  In game design, we talk about not giving the player the tools to optimize their fun away. I love the new wave of AI, I’ve been waiting for this level of natural language processing and generation capability for a very long time, but these are the tools for students to optimize the learning away. We need to reframe learning and education. We need to bring learning front and center instead of certification. Employers need to recognize this, universities need to recognize this, highschools and students and parents need to recognize this.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Reddit is bringing back r/Place at perhaps the worst possible time⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  My cynical guess is that’s what they’re hoping the community will do (“like lemmings, I tell you!” - spez) to drive higher traffic numbers before some announcement or meeting.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Fable Studios created an AI-generated episode of South Park... during a Hollywood strike over AI.⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  Only when it’s intentionally censored and trained to react in a particular way. When it’s not, you remember it was trained on random internet content.