Dopamine: An AI platform for designing human behavior

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].<p>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.<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;usedopamine.com&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;usedopamine.com&#x2F;</a><p>[2] <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;youjustneedspace.com&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;youjustneedspace.com&#x2F;</a>

&gt;Dopamine’s founders argue that they reserve the right to deny service to specific companies whose work seems to be off the level...<p>Just &quot;trust&quot; us. There are obviously many teams working on doing this, but never so audacious. These things are definitely not a value add to society, yet very profitable, like e.g. heroin if that doesn&#x27;t sound too hyperbolic.

&gt; While Brown condemned the behavior that’s been attributed to Sacca — and expressed disappointment that Mazzeo found the same troubles at his would-be new home, Binary Capital — he said that it didn’t dissuade him from taking Lowercase’s money.<p>Yup, people always take a high moral stand.. until there is money involved.

Even if the aims are benevolent, the naming and marketing copy just sound evil to me. They are trying to make it sound like they can turn your app into an addictive drug.

Everyone is over hyping this. It&#x27;s a silly company that drives engagement by inserting short gifs after user actions.<p>It has an edgy sounding name and just enough marketing buzz to scare you.<p>This company is not around in 5 years. Good UX &gt; whatever they are selling.

There was a great Dilbert comic that said ~ ‘If marketing we’re only slightly more effective it would be illegal.’ I am aware of 1960’s era laws against subliminal advertising. Are there any enforcible laws that limit how people are influenced with media and technology?<p>More questions: If there is a technical definition of illegal influence, what would be the test of legality work? Would would enforce it? Who would be in violation of those laws today? Are any of the archaic laws about advertising&#x2F;mind control that could be applied to today’s tech&#x2F;media&#x2F;security firms?<p>Finally, in a hypothetical scenario where a state actor was able to influence the mentally fragile into turning into mass shooters, how would nations and individuals start to protect themselves against such attacks?

Is this an accurate framing of your statement then? If we can think of the addictive nature of apps as &quot;brain hacking&quot;, you aim to be white hats? Using the same techniques to protect through understanding, instead of attack for personal gain?<p>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 many others here, have a hard time understanding how this science can be used both ethically and profitably.

I am just waiting for a lawyer for someone with Internet Addiction (<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov&#x2F;pmc&#x2F;articles&#x2F;PMC3480687&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov&#x2F;pmc&#x2F;articles&#x2F;PMC3480687&#x2F;</a>) to sue this company over one of their supported apps.<p>This is the kind of thing that I fear will prompt a backlash from the people and government and destroy the entire online ads regime that underpins the current Internet.

Before I even got through the first paragraph I was reminded of B.F. Skinner and his book &#x27;Beyond Freedom and Dignity&#x27;, which I read in high school. So it&#x27;s pretty funny that they named their AI after him. Dopamine labs may be evil, but at least they&#x27;re self aware.

Did you do something nice for a coworker today?<p>When&#x27;s the last time you said more than &#x27;hello&#x27; to a neighbor?<p>The only substitute for Social &quot;Media&quot; is a Social Culture. The reason most mature adults are checking their phones all the time is nobody interacts to any significance anymore in the public sphere. When we&#x27;re in public we are: A. trying to get somewhere else, and frustrated at being impeded by other people, B. Trying to buy something to consume or C. trying to sell something.<p>The best way to fight the screens and the apps is to provide a better alternative, IRL.

This feels like such a pandora&#x27;s box.<p>On one hand, it&#x27;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.

I guess it&#x27;s a win-win situation both ways: - it can make people more addicted to apps to the point where we all fall off cliffs or get run by an app addict while crossing the road using our phones. - or it can push people to the limit where they get so much addicted to their apps that they actually call for interventions, completely abandon their phone, or seek help; introducing youjustneedspace.com &lt;&#x2F;sarcasm&gt;

Greaaaaat... Seriously, does humanity really need this?

So some positive feedback gets an app more attention - I get that, apps than infantilize their users are getting popular. But does it really have to be presented at precise intervals, calculated by a clever algorithm made by neuro-scientist? I doubt the impact will differ when triggered at slightly sanitized random intervals instead.

Even though their product borders on pure evil, I have a certain admiration for how they aren&#x27;t even trying to hide it.

The originator of this project discussed in brief on HN a few months back, and I assume is reading this thread.<p>The reactions here could tell you that this is a really Bad Idea. Working or investing in this is a terrible choice and will forfeit baseline level of consideration you could normally expect from other people.

&quot;if a technology like Dopamine can actually encourage retention on apps aimed at self-improvement, that’s an inarguably good thing.&quot;<p>No, it absolutely is not. Some of most horrifying abuses in the history of the human race have occurred under the guise of &quot;improving&quot; other people for their own good.

Gee, the founders can&#x27;t have been happy with that title (different than on HN). What can founders do to avoid being represented in a negative light like this by the press, HN? Try to be the first to frame the conversation? Or is all press good press and it doesn&#x27;t matter?

So many accusations about &#x27;evil&#x27; here, without any significant evidence. As I see it, this middle-ware is a tool that you can choose to use for evil or good - the tool doesn&#x27;t get a moral value because of it&#x27;s use.<p>There is, of course, an argument that any manipulation of human behaviour is inherently evil, but it&#x27;s a very weak one - if you manipulate a person to eat well, exercise, donate to charity, call their parents and vote for a [insert a political cause that you believe to be inherently moral], is it still an evil thing to do?

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?<p>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?

Alright, so that guys has the guts to say “It’s our job to make sure that everyone gets treated as a human, not as an object.”.

Ruthless business models like this seem inevitable in a society that values making money far above anything else.

The irony of the VC firm backing this venture imploding due to the dopamine-seeking, short-term thinking, failure to contemplate consequences behaviour of <i>its</i> principals is ironically ironic.

Hire these guys for TV! I wish them success, all the big players are doing the same thing with more people. Keep on innovating, disrupting. Here is to your next cache hit.

This company should be call heroin. And they all should go to jail 30 years for dealing with addictive substances.

And then a certain Nobel Prize believes &quot;nudges&quot; will be used for our own good. Ha-ha.

Such a terrible name for a company.

I guess now I need to take break from Hackernews!

This is what cigarette companies have been doing for years so why no tech?<p>I&#x27;m wary that this will improve anything at all, but make things more annoying and addictive, as opposed to actually increasing productivity.

It&#x27;s what TV advertising is all about. Why aren&#x27;t we complaining about that?

Hi!<p>Founder (Brown) here. Appreciate the traffic!<p>Also, would love to clear up mob misconceptions about:<p>-Why did we pick lightening-rod branding?<p>-Why was this the most humanitarian use of a neuroscience MS&#x2F;PhD?<p>-What quality of people must we be to do this?<p>-What is design&#x27;s ethical imperative that, 100 years ago when most died of infections diseases, that this year the majority of people over 50 will die of strongly behavioral-based diseases? [1]<p>-How come the Founders of the Push Notification teams aren&#x27;t part of the cultural dialogue?<p>-What does Tristan Harris think?!<p>-What is our pricing model and can your startup get a discount? (YES!)<p>[1] soundcloud.com&#x2F;digital-mindfulness&#x2F;89-the-science-of-addictive-technology-with-ramsay-brown&#x2F;s-YQzyZ