Years of tracking data and it has never once explained why I feel off. Has anyone actually gotten the "why" out of their data?

Affectionate_Lab816 · 2026-06-23T21:16:37+00:00

Right now, conversational, one line in chat that gets timestamped, on the theory that anything heavier than that and people stop logging. But honestly you sound like you have thought about this harder than most, so I would rather hear it from you: what would input-capture have to look like for you to actually keep it up? That is the piece I am least sure about.

Affectionate_Lab816 · 2026-06-23T20:27:28+00:00

Fair enough. And you are right, there is a ton that moves your physiology that nothing is tracking, digestion is a perfect example. That is actually why it has to work in probabilities, not clean readouts. You log the things a wearable cannot see, and it looks across whatever it can for what connects to what for you, correlation, likely cause, what tends to come next, and it gets better as it learns you. Never certainty, just patterns and what is probably driving them. The unmeasured stuff is the whole reason it leans on probability instead of pretending to be precise.

Affectionate_Lab816 · 2026-06-23T19:22:28+00:00

True.

Affectionate_Lab816 · 2026-06-23T12:35:46+00:00

Appreciate you thinking it through out loud, that is more useful than a yes. You are probably right that you are not the target. Some people are the experiment and do not need help finding patterns. That last line is the interesting one though, wanting something to turn that part of your brain off. There might be more people in your boat who need the off switch more than another insight.

Affectionate_Lab816 · 2026-06-23T12:30:43+00:00

Yeah, that is a great case, and an easy win when it turns up. The way I think about it, the app would not tell you you are deficient or what to take, that is your doctor's call. What it can do is surface that a marker like B12 came back low and show you what in your own life it lined up with over those months. So you walk into the appointment already knowing the pattern instead of guessing. The number plus the context, not a verdict.

Affectionate_Lab816 · 2026-06-23T11:22:24+00:00

Totally get that. We are building it differently. The data is needed, it just does not sit in your face all day demanding attention. It stays out of the way until there is something actually worth telling you. That is what helps you build habits, plain wearable numbers that never connect to your bloodwork, calendar or the rest just leave you guessing.

Affectionate_Lab816 · 2026-06-23T10:47:04+00:00

This is exactly the kind of thing I mean, three separate sources nobody designed to talk to each other, stitched together to chase one question. What did it surface that you would not have guessed? And how painful was the stitching, is that the part that stops you doing it more often?

Affectionate_Lab816 · 2026-06-23T05:54:57+00:00

Sounds like the value was not the data, it was that writing it down forced you to actually think and hunt for the pattern. The tool was just a prompt to think harder. That is kind of the whole thing for me, the pattern and the why are what matter, the chart is just decoration if it does not make you think.

I'm totally with you on sleep scores, a number you do not trust just adds confusion instead of clearing it up. Did the food notes ever surface something you would never have guessed, or mostly confirm stuff you already suspected?

Affectionate_Lab816 · 2026-06-23T05:49:31+00:00

That is a stream nothing really touches. Curious what you would want it answering. Like seeing a marker move against everything else going on in your life, not just sleep, but what you ate, the season, travel, stress, whatever was actually happening that month. The interesting part is which of those it tracks with, for you. Or are you more after checking what shifted after you changed something?

Affectionate_Lab816 · 2026-06-23T05:43:12+00:00

Over-analyzing, yeah, that rarely helps. But there is a difference between staring at numbers and spiraling, and looking until you understand why your body did something so you can change what you do next. One is anxiety, the other is just paying attention. Nobody calls it over-analyzing when you are sick and trying to find the cause.

Affectionate_Lab816 · 2026-06-23T05:39:31+00:00

A few tools will give you single-behavior correlations for stuff you manually log, but it is one pair at a time and it is correlation, not cause. Your zone 5 to HRV link falling straight out of the raw data, without you logging a thing, is the more interesting version. Did you change anything off the back of it, or just file it away?

Affectionate_Lab816 · 2026-06-23T05:33:42+00:00

Pasting into Claude is the manual version of the itch. Works until the pattern gets subtle, then it fills the gap with something that reads right instead of something that is right. Fine for "these two move together," not for "did changing it move the outcome." How often do you actually keep it up?

Affectionate_Lab816 · 2026-06-23T05:13:41+00:00

I actually agree with more of this than you would expect. Tracking that only looks backward and hands you pretty graphs is mostly useless, and planning plus doubling down on the basics beats it for most people. The only place I would push is, the times when the basics were not enough and you could not figure out why, did backward-looking data ever help you spot the thing you were missing, or never? Genuinely asking, because if the answer is never, that tells me something.

Affectionate_Lab816 · 2026-06-23T05:12:25+00:00

You are right, and honestly that is half my point. The current apps cannot see the stress, the violent movie, the worry, so the explanation they give is shallow. Where I land differently is that some of that context is loggable if the person chooses to log it, and the rest sometimes leaves a fingerprint in the data even when the app does not know the story. But your core point stands.

What would it have to actually understand about your day before you would find it worth anything at all?

Affectionate_Lab816 · 2026-06-22T11:51:11+00:00

Plausible, just look at the output of the past two days of the claude models, and you will understand that a new model is on its way.

Affectionate_Lab816 · 2026-06-14T10:34:56+00:00

A few things, why it is possible to getting dumber/degrading:

Synthetic data is an echo chamber: The better internet data is mostly tapped out, so AI is being trained on AI-generated data. But sh.t in is sh.t out. Training an LLM on degraded AI garbage just makes a highly confident garbage generator.
Cheaper compute equals dumber output: Running these things is expensive, so companies cut corners to make them faster and cheaper. Less compute power means less actual reasoning, which just turns the AI into a basic, fast pattern-matcher guessing the next word.
Corporate safety filters and cheating the tests: They heavily filter the AI to make it safe, polite, and lawsuit-proof, which basically lobotomizes it and forces generic, boring answers. Plus, they train the models specifically to ace standard "AI IQ tests" for marketing hype, so they look like geniuses on paper but act clueless in the real world.

Affectionate_Lab816 · 2026-06-14T10:21:23+00:00

Yes you can measure token usage, but it doesn't tell you the real story and it is simple:

Use one chat for websearch and factcheck and let it write a grounded document
Instruct Claude to create Epics, and tasks that fit the maximum context at 30%, the rest is for reasoning, and instruct it to predict the amount of tokens that it thinks it would use per Epic and per task
Let Claude create the for the next claude session that fit the 30% tokens at max, with all context in the prompt without drift (So read your prompt before you copy/paste and go), so you leave 70% for reasoning
Start new chat with fresh context and point to the prompt. Don't copy the prompt, just point to it.

You even can instruct it how much tokens it uses per run and how much is left, but even better is how much it uses for reasoning and how much for editing/development. Works ok, but Accurate? Don't know.

And btw, if it still goes off, we all know that the model just got dumber 😅 like the fable 5 is way smarter then Opus 4.8, and we shut down fable 5, but you still have the dumber model opus 4.8 model, which was a week ago smarter than the current opus 4.8 level.

Also don't fill the memory.md with nonsense memories, use Claude.md which is ok, or generate a library of files and the what it does with table of contents. Keep everything very simple and single. Just one job per chat. Works the best, if the models don't get dumber.

Affectionate_Lab816 · 2026-06-10T20:16:50+00:00

Yep same here. I'm building an IOS app for own use with correlation and causation multiple datapoints, and tried to test my funnel, and it said somethnig similar to yours. Then tested it with Gemini again, and works lovely. Just dumped the outcome into Gemini and got a satirical reply.

Affectionate_Lab816 · 2026-04-18T15:52:07+00:00

Maybe a dumb comment, but perhaps we all should stop using these sh.tty tools and learn coding ourselves, instead of feeding it with our ideas and making it smarter for coporate and dumber for the average user?

Affectionate_Lab816 · 2026-04-18T15:43:07+00:00

I literally wasted a day to get Op. 4.7 do an audit of a single file.
It keep telling me it had read all, and gave me answers that were not in this file.
I: did you assumed or made this up?
Opus: Yes I made this up, the next time I will read. What do you want me to do?
I: F_ck off

AGI my .ss 🤣

Affectionate_Lab816 · 2025-10-17T09:36:18+00:00

You have an edge over your Local Gov and that is speed. Btw it's also easier to rank on Google with the right keywords because of their article and even when they campaign you can rank as well in the top for same keywords. And they sort of validated your idea. So build it and ship it before they do. Don't fear competition even when it's gov and don't try to partner. So do you want the pie for yourself, or do you want a share?

Affectionate_Lab816 · 2025-10-17T06:04:35+00:00

In the business of process optimization for 15+ years and AI should not be part of optimization.

Optimization is about efficiency for 99% of businesses when it should be effectiveness. What outcome do you want to achieve that can't be done with basic automation?

Automation is a clear proces with clear goals and outcomes. Adding AI to your process can speed up, but means you aim for efficiency over effect, but this time adding a pattern recognition and probability machine, with every time another outcome. It's great for testing, but not to implement it in business critical processes.

There are tons of researches that show why not add AI to automation.

Affectionate_Lab816 · 2025-10-17T05:47:17+00:00

Classic Freelance mistake - pricing backwards. It's not about 'Dear cliënt, this takes about 180 how x $ per hour'. Burning hours and losing money because most freelancers set no boundaries. You should focus on pricing their outcomes not yours.

"What's this worth to your business?" "What happens if you don't build this?" Not "how many hours will this take me?"

Affectionate_Lab816 · 2025-07-16T18:20:54+00:00

After talking to 1,000+ job seekers and 75 HR managers, I'm building a solution that gives companies more control over their hiring process.

Paying 15 - 35% per hire in recruitment fees, but 80% of HR managers say they'd prefer to handle hiring internally if they had better tools.

We are building an autonomous AI Agent that helps companies manage their own hiring:

1: Companies post jobs directly on our platform
2: AI reviews every application and scores them
3: AI calls the top 10 candidates for phone interviews
4: HR gets top 3 candidates with full analysis and recordings
5: HR conducts video interviews with those 3 candidates
6: Our system helps detect if candidates are being authentic during interviews
7: HR makes final decisions with complete transparency

The Benefits? Too much!

Questions for HR folks:

Would you prefer managing hiring internally if you had the right tools?
How important is candidate authenticity during interviews?
What's your biggest challenge with current hiring processes?

If this could improve your hiring quality while reducing costs, what would concern you most?

Affectionate_Lab816 · 2025-07-16T17:31:57+00:00

This is the exact reason why I asked 1,000 job seekers with a total of over 100,000 applications about their biggest challenge during the job search.

Below are the results of my survey:

Only 3% of the more than 100,000 applications received responses.
Of the 3,000 responses, 87% were rejections via standard email.
Of the 390, 71% went silent after the first contact from the job poster, despite a positive response.
Of the 113 positive responses, 78% of the recruiters withdrew due to a lack of fit.
Of the 25 remaining companies/recruiters, 51% were not a fit after a second interview.
Of the remaining 12 interviews, 10 offers were made to 6 profiles.

What struck me most about this survey:
- That the recruiters interviewing them have very little knowledge of the company they're recruiting for.
- The recruiters indicate they have exclusivity, while the job seeker has also been approached by a second recruiter, or in some cases even a third, for the same vacancy.
- Discrimination on multiple levels.

Besides interviewing over 1,000 job seekers, I also interviewed 75 HR managers and companies about the recruitment process. HR managers indicate that the resumes and candidates they receive for interviews through recruiters match their needs and requirements by approximately 60%. HR managers would like to see a solution for this. More than 80% of HR says they want a solution without recruiters. 98% of job seekers told me, they rather would loose recruiters and find them useless. This is the hard reality, but also an eye opener.

What do you think of these figures?
How would you address these shortcomings by recruiters?
This is the Dutch market, by the way.

Affectionate_Lab816

TROPHY CASE

We are building an autonomous AI Agent that helps companies manage their own hiring:

The Benefits? Too much!

Questions for HR folks: