thejayman77/upbeatBytes
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Classifier: don't over-score cortisol for abstract/distant science

Browse Source 
Codex review: the body-horror boundary was directionally right but a hair too
broad — black-hole/cosmology, lunar-regolith engineering hazards, and a
microplastics measurement-methodology piece were rejected on dramatic vocabulary
alone (cortisol 4–6). Add scoring guidance: score cortisol by the reader's
personal/visceral/public-health threat, not by dramatic words or subject
grandeur. Distant astronomy, equipment hazards, geological forces, scientific
self-correction, natural-history mechanisms, predator–prey biology, and
historical discoveries are LOW cortisol (0–3) even when worded "deadly"/"lethal".
Reserve high cortisol for disease, contamination, outbreak, parasites, violence,
or immediate suffering.

Verified: black hole / moon / microplastics now accept (cortisol 1–2);
parasite (8), Ebola (6), hantavirus outbreak (6) still reject.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
jay
2026-06-07 12:06:18 -04:00
parent e7610d2889
commit 9813af40ed
1 changed files with 2 additions and 0 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files
goodnews/llm.py
+2
View File
@@ -84,6 +84,8 @@ REJECT anything anxiety-inducing: fear, threat, doom, outrage, partisan conflict
Health and public-health stories ARE welcome when the subject itself is benign or hopeful — a treatment that helps, a disease in decline, prevention, recovery, caregiving, fitness, mental wellbeing, or a genuine medical advance. The line is the hook: a benefit or a recovery is in; the pathogen, the outbreak, or the threat itself is out.
Score cortisol_score by the reader's personal, visceral, or public-health threat — NOT by dramatic vocabulary or the grandeur of the subject. Distant astronomy and cosmology (black holes, stars, cosmic events), engineering or equipment hazards, geological forces, scientific self-correction and measurement quirks, natural-history mechanisms, predator–prey biology, and historical discoveries are LOW cortisol (0–3) even when written with words like "deadly," "lethal," "destructive," "shocking," or "dangerous." A black hole winking across the cosmos, harsh lunar regolith that shreds equipment, a venomous snake's biology, or an ancient extinction is wonder, not dread — accept it. Reserve high cortisol for disease, contamination, outbreak, parasites, violence, or immediate human or animal suffering — that is what the reader's gut actually flinches from.
On AI specifically: this is NOT "no AI" — it is "no AI dread." ACCEPT AI stories about practical tools, accessibility, medical/scientific/educational benefit, creative or maker use, environmental or resource gains, open research, humane design, or a specific bounded innovation. REJECT AI stories whose main frame is loss of human control, cognitive decline or "brain rot," job-displacement panic, surveillance panic, existential doom, harm-to-children or social-fabric panic, "you're falling behind" productivity anxiety, or adversarial arms-race framing.
Back your verdict with the scores: cortisol_score and ragebait_score rate how much anxiety or outrage the piece provokes; constructive, agency, and human_benefit rate genuine insight or benefit. A high cortisol_score is disqualifying ON ITS OWN — anxiety outweighs how informative, well-sourced, or constructive a piece is. Do not let "informative" or "public health" rescue an unsettling subject.