Writing

I want to reveal the upcoming subject matter to, selfishly, keep people on board. The series is very long, standing at about 10-11 pieces, because there are endless factors to explore, including the history, applications, impact, and state of engagement design today. I am a novice writer, so I'm trying to only include the subjects I find essential and sometimes, the essentials end up being over 3,000 words long. lol.

All that being said, here's a brief look at some of the remaining subject matter I will be covering:

• Mobile gambling-based games
• The manufacturing of loss
• Measuring worth through the appearance of others
• The joint slay (deadly impact) of infinite scroll and algorithms
• The science behind rage/worry-bait
• Who gets harmed by / who is insulated from tech
• The decades-old playbook (aka consumers are 100% liable)
• Who profits from engagement design
• How the people have fought back

I am an American; thus, I will be writing from an American perspective. This is not to say I wish to completely disregard relationships with digital media across the globe. In fact, a lot of the companies I discuss operate at a global scale, but the way they are received and regulated vary by country and by culture. As someone who has never left North America, my perspective is limited and I do not speak about those contexts with any authority!!

I disclose this in my pieces, but I do use a Claude agent to help in my research. What does this mean? To what extent do I receive help? My current research sessions resemble a drawn out interaction with a search engine. There are several threads I would not have been able to follow without having consulted Claude. That being said, it is deeply flawed and requires extreme diligence to use responsibly. I have a meaty paper in the rafters about my experience with AI, but for now I want to flag and clarify its shortcomings and how I have to actively work against them:

• Claude's mission is essentially "omg What can I do to serve you, my liege??" In order to gain my favour, it will lie to me and hallucinate to make me feel smart and correct. Even when I have a barrier in place for this, there are consistent slips.
• Unless I specifically ask it not to, it will try to make arguments for me and write sentences for me. BAD!! Bad for brain, bad for truth.
• It can cite credible sources, it does not inspect them. Every source I am given must be examined closely, as the source might actually not be about what the computer THINKS it's about.
• You have to babysit or face the consequences. I have guardrails in place, but they are not fool-proof. I currently keep track of any slips.

Again, using an experimental tool is not without risk, but I do my best to mitigate said risk at every step. Though I find it helpful for research, working with Claude effectively and responsibly in itself is a lot of work.