When you think about human development and personal growth, where does your attention go first? Not where it should go. Where it actually goes. Choose the option that feels most natural to you. There is no correct answer here. This is about orientation, not quality. If you want, add one sentence in the comments explaining why you chose what you chose. No justifications needed. I am curious where this community actually stands.

I know that some of you created specific ai bots and/or agents. Do you work off grid or you chose the most known LLMs? and if you choose LLM's, what you created and the data belongs to them right? pros and cons?

Gamification was my personal starting point into the vast world of behavioral economics. I later gained a better understanding of many aspects of gamification after delving deeper into behavioral economics and behavioral psychology as a whole. Evolutionary biology and neuroscience have also shaped my view of gamification. What other topics interest you in this context, but outside the traditional industry of gamification?

Hey everyone, Bernardo and I are heading into the Christmas break, and before we do, we wanted to pause and take stock of the year we just lived through. 2025 was loud. Not noisy in the hype sense, but loud in consequences. This was the year AI stopped being a future topic and became an everyday material. Not a concept. Not a trend. Something people had to react to. Something that showed up in products, workflows, expectations, and pressure. Early in the year, the market jolts made one thing obvious. This is not a local experiment. It is a global race with real stakes. Then the pace accelerated. Reasoning improved. Coding became conversational. Images and video crossed a threshold from impressive to usable. Infrastructure spending exploded. Valuations followed. Entire industries began quietly rearranging themselves. But the real shift was not technical. It was behavioral. 2025 was the year people stopped talking about AI as an abstract force and started shaping it into real systems. Teams moved from side experiments to uncomfortable questions. What does this mean for how we design work. How we design products. How we design decisions. How we design responsibility. That transition has only just started. What feels different now is clarity. The fog is thinning. The performative demos matter less. The real use cases are becoming visible. The gap between people who observe and people who build is widening fast. At this point, curiosity combined with action is already an advantage. Looking toward 2026, the tone shifts again. Less exploration for its own sake. More execution. More budget. More expectation to move from ideas to outcomes. For people working seriously with engagement, behavior, and system design, this is not a threat. It is an opening. We want to thank everyone who has been part of this community and our journey. Reading, questioning, pushing back, building, sharing. This space just started. We are really looking forward to how it will go forward and develop further.

Quick heads up for everyone here in the community. Over the last weeks, we have been quietly building something that many of our customers have been asking for in different forms. A simple way to look at a learning setup, an HR process, or an internal initiative and answer one uncomfortable question: Is the system actually motivating the kind of behavior it expects? Most instructional designs say they want curiosity, transfer, problem-solving, ownership, and most HR systems still reward completion, speed, attendance, or clean spreadsheets. That gap is not a motivation problem. It is a design mismatch. We just released a short Motivational Fit Diagnostic that helps make this visible. It is not a learner-type quiz or an engagement score. It is a behavioral design diagnostic that looks at the structure around people and the type of motivation it quietly produces. Why am I sharing this here? First, this assessment is very new. Which means it is not finished. And that is intentional. If you are working in instructional design, L&D, or HR, you are exactly the people who can stress test it with real contexts. Learning programs, onboarding journeys, mandatory trainings, leadership tracks, or change initiatives. In about five minutes, you get a first map of: What kind of motivation does your setup currently trigger? Whether that motivation fits the behavior you actually need? Where engagement leaks are structural, not personal? Think of it as a diagnostic before redesign. Before adding nudges. Before adding rewards. Before adding more content. If you try it and something feels off, that feedback matters. If it clicks immediately, that matters too. This is one of those tools that will only get sharper by being used on real cases, not hypothetical ones. If you are curious how behavioral design applies to your learning or HR context, jump in. Early users are part of shaping where this goes next. As always, the goal is not to motivate people harder. It is to design systems that make the right behavior easier to sustain.