This excellent coaching and practice model would work well in the workplace to train employees in mastering constructive disagreement. I’d like to learn more!
It's true that designing AI to simulate negative behaviors, even for practice, can be a delicate balance Professor. The intent, as described in your article, is to give students a safe space to practice specific linguistic techniques for "conversational receptiveness" when faced with a difficult (though not abusive) interlocutor, without the social risks of a real-world encounter. The aim is to hone skills in remaining constructive despite the other party's ‘difficult’ stance.
However, your article raises the potential risks in my view:
• Misinterpretation: Students might not fully distinguish between the simulated "bad" behavior of Riley and effective communication, or they might internalize the idea that such confrontational styles are standard. To present this behavior as a black and white example, despite ongoing testing, simply undercuts the immense attention that true human behavior requires in study.
• Focus on Technique Over Substance: The emphasis on specific linguistic patterns might risk overshadowing deeper aspects of understanding, empathy, and genuine connection in disagreements. I.e. tone, context, scale, proximity to any other number of factors.
• The "Meaner" Iteration: I view the iterative process to make Riley "meaner" as problematic if it's perceived as an endorsement of, or desensitization to, negative interaction styles, rather than a carefully calibrated tool for resilience training. Simply put, you are encouraging the removal of the human element in the study, by focusing solely on metric output of the dialogue. Where is the study on the human psyche behind Riley’s prompts? Would be interesting to see that element explored alongside the 'language' score.
The effectiveness and appropriateness of such a tool likely depend heavily on how it's framed, contextualized within a broader curriculum of communication ethics, and debriefed by instructors. If the tool is just one part of a larger strategy that also emphasizes empathy, active listening, and the goals of truly constructive dialogue, its utility might be viewed differently. If studies like these are used improperly or if its models are uncritically adopted, I wonder if we will be truly ‘simulating’ behavior at all someday.
This excellent coaching and practice model would work well in the workplace to train employees in mastering constructive disagreement. I’d like to learn more!
Thank you so much for sharing all these details. What a fascinating way to offer students robust practice.
https://substack.com/@steven2x2?r=5klwzo&utm_medium=ios
It's true that designing AI to simulate negative behaviors, even for practice, can be a delicate balance Professor. The intent, as described in your article, is to give students a safe space to practice specific linguistic techniques for "conversational receptiveness" when faced with a difficult (though not abusive) interlocutor, without the social risks of a real-world encounter. The aim is to hone skills in remaining constructive despite the other party's ‘difficult’ stance.
However, your article raises the potential risks in my view:
• Misinterpretation: Students might not fully distinguish between the simulated "bad" behavior of Riley and effective communication, or they might internalize the idea that such confrontational styles are standard. To present this behavior as a black and white example, despite ongoing testing, simply undercuts the immense attention that true human behavior requires in study.
• Focus on Technique Over Substance: The emphasis on specific linguistic patterns might risk overshadowing deeper aspects of understanding, empathy, and genuine connection in disagreements. I.e. tone, context, scale, proximity to any other number of factors.
• The "Meaner" Iteration: I view the iterative process to make Riley "meaner" as problematic if it's perceived as an endorsement of, or desensitization to, negative interaction styles, rather than a carefully calibrated tool for resilience training. Simply put, you are encouraging the removal of the human element in the study, by focusing solely on metric output of the dialogue. Where is the study on the human psyche behind Riley’s prompts? Would be interesting to see that element explored alongside the 'language' score.
The effectiveness and appropriateness of such a tool likely depend heavily on how it's framed, contextualized within a broader curriculum of communication ethics, and debriefed by instructors. If the tool is just one part of a larger strategy that also emphasizes empathy, active listening, and the goals of truly constructive dialogue, its utility might be viewed differently. If studies like these are used improperly or if its models are uncritically adopted, I wonder if we will be truly ‘simulating’ behavior at all someday.
So where can n I get DebatMate please?
Congratulations!
https://substack.com/@steven2x2/note/p-162933417?r=5klwzo&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action