We're a small team, always glad to meet people who are into this kind of work. If that's you, reach out and share who you are, what you've built, and why it's your thing.
When a person recognizes themselves in a description, it means the description sounds right, which is not the same as being right. We work on how to really check a behavioral read when there is no clean outside answer to compare it to.
Looking back, a change is obvious. Spotting it live, and knowing how sure to be, with no labels to learn from and a person who keeps moving, is the hard part.
We only ever see the choices people actually made, so pulling cause and effect out of that is genuinely hard, and having richer data does not make it any easier.
Whether you can reliably tell how someone feels from behavioral traces is still an open question, and we are testing how far it actually goes.
Behavioral inference creates information that did not exist before, and the legal and ethical rules around it are still unsettled. We work right in the middle of that.
We would love to hear from people who work in these areas: computational behavioral scientists, psychometricians who care about validity, behavioral economists working with revealed preference, privacy researchers who know reconstruction attacks, ML people who have worked with longitudinal data, causal inference researchers, and engineers who like building while the ideas are still moving.