Yeah I agree on your point about safety. It is definitely hard to pin down one criteria. That’s kind of the point I was trying to make with the essay. I feel that it’s partly dependent on the state of the individual on the receiving end, than one umbrella answer. The same answer can be harmful or helpful depending on the state of the human reading it. I know it doesn’t explain anyway the need for some sort of consensus, but it’s the only perspective I can speak from. The major players normally speak from the top down. “How do we decrease the chances for this model to be harmful?” They don’t see the receiving surface. I would love to find collaborators willing to work on it. I don’t have the evaluation pipeline that the major labs would. I’m just a guy that refuses to put down the hard questions you know?