Is it just me, or does it seem extremely dangerous to market: “Strata doesn't just show the data. It makes the call.”
The page states it’s powered by Claude with nothing I could see that relates to its performance, metrics, processes, testing, etc. for something expected to be used in a safety application.
Note that there is Strata (strata.com), the 3d software company, which I immediately thought it was about. It was the first 3d software I used some 30 years ago.
Read the headline - sounds like a therapy / anti-suicide advocacy app?
Clicked the link - ok looks like it's for ski touring, because it mentions avalanche stuff?
Checked the route catalog - wait, there's barely any ski tours here and it's a bunch of random hikes from around the country. Why is avalanche risk highlighted when 99% of hikers are probably gonna stay home if there's a big snowstorm? Is this by chance your personal hiking history? Why these hikes in particular?
Are avalanches the only way someone can die outdoors? What about snake bites, heat exhaustion, drowning etc.?
I am not sure what the app actually does vs gaia, alltrails, nwac app. The site only has one screenshot. What does this app add?
This is going to kill someone... you can't just make these calls for people. And it's DEFINITELY not a replacement for snowpack tests, etc. at the location you're going to visit.
Risk assessment is entirely part of mountaineering, and other risk-encompassing outdoor activities. Decision boundary to go or not go is never a sharp line, and it's always relative to your capacities, your knowledge, and ability to continually assess the risks while practicing.
It is simple to craft the story around an accident in retrospect, but on the field the story is never that simple. If you read accidents reports (like AAC), you will probably never see accidents coming straight from one bad decision, at the beginning of the day, on one particular aspect. It is usual though to see failure about acknowledging changing conditions, multi-factor risks, or even failure to acknowledge high risk/low difficulty transitions by experienced people.
It's also why it is called engagement. Some people are willing to put their life on the line to achieve a moonshot project. But they usually know the risk they are taking.
Llms never took a difficult on field decision, never had to turn gut feeling into calls. If you were experienced enough in both machine learning and mountaineering, you would know a lot of this decision taking is pre-verbal, and is probably very lightly represented in training sets, if at all.
More AI hiking crap that will probably kill someone
So tired of this crap flooding the hiking community. Hiking communities are being bombarded by crap apps at the moment (particularly trip planning apps)
18 comments of 31
[ 17.7 ms ] story [ 140 ms ] threadThe page states it’s powered by Claude with nothing I could see that relates to its performance, metrics, processes, testing, etc. for something expected to be used in a safety application.
How do we know it’s providing correct data?
[1]: https://strata.highloop.co/terms
Scroll scroll scroll…
“Strata informs your decisions — it doesn't make them for you.”
I hope you don’t kill someone.
Clicked the link - ok looks like it's for ski touring, because it mentions avalanche stuff?
Checked the route catalog - wait, there's barely any ski tours here and it's a bunch of random hikes from around the country. Why is avalanche risk highlighted when 99% of hikers are probably gonna stay home if there's a big snowstorm? Is this by chance your personal hiking history? Why these hikes in particular?
Are avalanches the only way someone can die outdoors? What about snake bites, heat exhaustion, drowning etc.?
I am not sure what the app actually does vs gaia, alltrails, nwac app. The site only has one screenshot. What does this app add?
A better plain title would be
Strata: An LLM App that Tells You If Your Hiking Route Today is Likely Safe.
I've literally "risked my life outdoors" for more than six decades in most climates at many altitudes and depths and this isn't something I'd pack.
It is simple to craft the story around an accident in retrospect, but on the field the story is never that simple. If you read accidents reports (like AAC), you will probably never see accidents coming straight from one bad decision, at the beginning of the day, on one particular aspect. It is usual though to see failure about acknowledging changing conditions, multi-factor risks, or even failure to acknowledge high risk/low difficulty transitions by experienced people.
It's also why it is called engagement. Some people are willing to put their life on the line to achieve a moonshot project. But they usually know the risk they are taking.
Llms never took a difficult on field decision, never had to turn gut feeling into calls. If you were experienced enough in both machine learning and mountaineering, you would know a lot of this decision taking is pre-verbal, and is probably very lightly represented in training sets, if at all.
So tired of this crap flooding the hiking community. Hiking communities are being bombarded by crap apps at the moment (particularly trip planning apps)
Do not trust this data.