Oh, no way. This is really cool. Anything to make presentations more interactive and interesting. I like the look too.<p>I’m doing something similar with interactive stories [1] but where multiple trees can happen.<p>I wonder if you could use AI to let people explore your presentation on their own after (maybe even during the presentation).<p>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?<p>1. <a href="https://gluze.com" rel="nofollow">https://gluze.com</a>
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?<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.)<p>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.)
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 <i>"hand-drawn in Procreate"</i>. 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)?<p>I wouldn't have even brought it up if the artisanal declaration hadn't been explicitly called out.<p>I find the logic of AI art != okay, but AI code == okay, a bit inconsistent.