Hiii! Thanks! I’m only speaking for myself here, and I’m mostly interested in #3, or specifically in building, testing, and rolling out an AI-based tool for this rather than an RCT.
2. Consider the challenges of distribution and funding.
Yeah, working directly with the likes of Google (Gemini) and others would be swag, but correct me if I’m wrong, I see a very low chance of that working out? There is little commercial incentive in it for them, it doesn’t help them gain more market share from their competitors because our target clients can’t pay much, reputational risks similar to self-driving cars, etc. I haven’t asked anyone who works there, but I’m not sufficiently optimistic that it could work out to attempt it… Besides, if it does work out and lots of people start using Gemini for therapy, and then Google redecides and closes that department again, lots of users will use new version of a product for a purpose for which it’s not tested or optimized anymore.
But I already built an alpha version of an app for mentalization-based treatment on top of Gemini. That’s super easy, and I’ll permanently have control over the instructions and possibly the fine-tuning. If it should turn out to be too risky, I can shut it down, or more likely I can make adjustments to minimize any new risks.
Do you think I overestimate the difficulty of working with the model providers?
4. Doing too many things
The topics can probably be trimmed down a bit, but I feel like #1–3 form a nice story line where we first assess the risks, the assess the opportunities, and then exploit them? Personally, I’d rather 80⁄20 all of that by rolling out my solution only to fairly stable people first (I’m in some relevant support groups), collect feedback, poll well-being measures from time to time, and react to any problems with safety (in the feedback) or lacking effectiveness (well-being measures) along the way, while I increasingly market it to wider audiences. The others might want to take this more slowly, and as a result they’ll probably have the better data, but when that data is in, I can still optimize my tool accordingly.
Do you think it would really be better to focus on one topic only or would you agree that merging and 80/20ing is the better approach?
Hiii! Thanks! I’m only speaking for myself here, and I’m mostly interested in #3, or specifically in building, testing, and rolling out an AI-based tool for this rather than an RCT.
Yeah, working directly with the likes of Google (Gemini) and others would be swag, but correct me if I’m wrong, I see a very low chance of that working out? There is little commercial incentive in it for them, it doesn’t help them gain more market share from their competitors because our target clients can’t pay much, reputational risks similar to self-driving cars, etc. I haven’t asked anyone who works there, but I’m not sufficiently optimistic that it could work out to attempt it… Besides, if it does work out and lots of people start using Gemini for therapy, and then Google redecides and closes that department again, lots of users will use new version of a product for a purpose for which it’s not tested or optimized anymore.
But I already built an alpha version of an app for mentalization-based treatment on top of Gemini. That’s super easy, and I’ll permanently have control over the instructions and possibly the fine-tuning. If it should turn out to be too risky, I can shut it down, or more likely I can make adjustments to minimize any new risks.
Do you think I overestimate the difficulty of working with the model providers?
The topics can probably be trimmed down a bit, but I feel like #1–3 form a nice story line where we first assess the risks, the assess the opportunities, and then exploit them? Personally, I’d rather 80⁄20 all of that by rolling out my solution only to fairly stable people first (I’m in some relevant support groups), collect feedback, poll well-being measures from time to time, and react to any problems with safety (in the feedback) or lacking effectiveness (well-being measures) along the way, while I increasingly market it to wider audiences. The others might want to take this more slowly, and as a result they’ll probably have the better data, but when that data is in, I can still optimize my tool accordingly.
Do you think it would really be better to focus on one topic only or would you agree that merging and 80/20ing is the better approach?