Former game dev here, drenched in cold sweat! Drop anything you are doing and immediately erase any mention of the 4-letter genre (words 3,4,5,6 in the title of your post). It is trademarked term and the holder goes VERY aggressively after it, including it's 4 letter acronym. I strongly suggest deleting the GitHub repo if it contains that phrase and create new GitHub repo without it. Use something like "interactive adventure" or something like that.
Even Netflix got sued over a Black Mirror spinoff that used the phrase. They countersued to invalidate the trademark; the suit was settled under undisclosed terms. I would love to know how that went down and why there wasn't an obvious path to success for Netflix...
I guess I'd like a bit more explanation on what you envisage. I'm thinking back to presentations I've done, even ones where entertainment was an ancillary goal, but I'm not seeing how this would help?
Obviously there are a bunch of presentations which are dry, and can't really be tweaked. I'm thinking of financial things, income statements etc. They're primarily informational, and we need to see all the slides. Having the audience vote on whether to look at the cash-flow slide, or debtors analysis next seems contrived.
Then I've done presentations to inform. Like say introducing developers to Unicode. That tends to follow a path of knowledge, where one fact or concept builds on previous facts. We can't really discuss string normalization before covering code points and characters etc.
Sales presentations are a bit hit or miss. They can be wildly entertaining, or dreadfully dull. They can certainly be too focused on the product and too unfocused on the specific customer need. But a good one also leads the customer through specific steps (while keeping attention.)
So I'm a bit curious as to the presentations you've experienced where you feel this would have improved things? (Other than the very common "please can we end this presentation already" sentiment which is alas all too common.)
Oh, no way. This is really cool. Anything to make presentations more interactive and interesting. I like the look too.
I’m doing something similar with interactive stories [1] but where multiple trees can happen.
I wonder if you could use AI to let people explore your presentation on their own after (maybe even during the presentation).
Like, explain a slide in more detail. You put a dump of information (death by PowerPoint style stuff) then let it think up questions the guest can explore?
I noticed you pointed out that the logo was "hand-drawn in Procreate". Is the code the same or were portions of it generated using an LLM (which was almost assuredly trained on lots of copyrighted data without the consent of the original authors and writers)?
I wouldn't have even brought it up if the artisanal declaration hadn't been explicitly called out.
I find the logic of AI art != okay, but AI code == okay, a bit inconsistent.
Or maybe the author just wanted to share a nice drawing he did, without trying to start an intellectual debate on wether AI doing art is equivalent to AI doing code or whatever
Former game dev here, drenched in cold sweat! Drop anything you are doing and immediately erase any mention of the 4-letter genre (words 3,4,5,6 in the title of your post). It is trademarked term and the holder goes VERY aggressively after it, including it's 4 letter acronym. I strongly suggest deleting the GitHub repo if it contains that phrase and create new GitHub repo without it. Use something like "interactive adventure" or something like that.
Oh my god you're right. That's so annoying.
Even Netflix got sued over a Black Mirror spinoff that used the phrase. They countersued to invalidate the trademark; the suit was settled under undisclosed terms. I would love to know how that went down and why there wasn't an obvious path to success for Netflix...
Or you know, not make life easy for abusers by just giving up and rolling over.
"words 3,4,5,6 in the title" what is this, voldemort?
I guess I'd like a bit more explanation on what you envisage. I'm thinking back to presentations I've done, even ones where entertainment was an ancillary goal, but I'm not seeing how this would help?
Obviously there are a bunch of presentations which are dry, and can't really be tweaked. I'm thinking of financial things, income statements etc. They're primarily informational, and we need to see all the slides. Having the audience vote on whether to look at the cash-flow slide, or debtors analysis next seems contrived.
Then I've done presentations to inform. Like say introducing developers to Unicode. That tends to follow a path of knowledge, where one fact or concept builds on previous facts. We can't really discuss string normalization before covering code points and characters etc.
Sales presentations are a bit hit or miss. They can be wildly entertaining, or dreadfully dull. They can certainly be too focused on the product and too unfocused on the specific customer need. But a good one also leads the customer through specific steps (while keeping attention.)
So I'm a bit curious as to the presentations you've experienced where you feel this would have improved things? (Other than the very common "please can we end this presentation already" sentiment which is alas all too common.)
Oh, no way. This is really cool. Anything to make presentations more interactive and interesting. I like the look too.
I’m doing something similar with interactive stories [1] but where multiple trees can happen.
I wonder if you could use AI to let people explore your presentation on their own after (maybe even during the presentation).
Like, explain a slide in more detail. You put a dump of information (death by PowerPoint style stuff) then let it think up questions the guest can explore?
1. https://gluze.com
I’m always a huge fan of asymmetrical projects where people connect with their phones to collectively modify a shared state.
Nice idea, good luck!
I noticed you pointed out that the logo was "hand-drawn in Procreate". Is the code the same or were portions of it generated using an LLM (which was almost assuredly trained on lots of copyrighted data without the consent of the original authors and writers)?
I wouldn't have even brought it up if the artisanal declaration hadn't been explicitly called out.
I find the logic of AI art != okay, but AI code == okay, a bit inconsistent.
Or maybe the author just wanted to share a nice drawing he did, without trying to start an intellectual debate on wether AI doing art is equivalent to AI doing code or whatever