Thank you for this thoughtful approach to tools that can actually help and not inflict more harm. I have not been affected by a "natural disaster." However, I'm aging (78) in a system that was broken to start with and has been trashed in the last 2 yrs. I have friends who are housebound or even houseless who are further burdened by senseless, time consuming, repetitive paperwork to get the meager help that's available. We often say we need an ombudsman or at least someone with a higher executive brain function to help us navigate that swamp. The website you're creating could help with the disaster that is daily life for millions of marginalized people in the US and elsewhere.
And I appreciate your thoughful discussion of navigating the AI quandry. So many of the incredible tech developments of the last 50 years had the potential of making our lives and relationships so much richer but the drive for profits has highjacked those tools and turned them into weapons used to destroy our communities.
Thanks so much for your comment and support, Patricia. Yes the system has been trashed especially hard in the last 2 years, we are really hoping this tool can help fill a small but important part of that gash that's been opened.
OMG. I lived through hurricane Dorian’s bullseye hit. 9/1/2019. It took three full years to get back to square one, but I can say that my husband and I and many others pretty much fully recovered. Not everybody made it through those first three years. The single most important factor that helped ME get through at the beginning was seeing a graph showing how disasters work. The line that had multiple drops in it, but finally got back on track. Until I saw that graph I did not understand what we were going through, or had to go through next. It was instantly recognizable and super helpful to my mental state. Anyway, disaster recovery IS possible, we did it, I love our new house and our garden has exploded with life. I live in Hopetown, Abaco, Bahamas.
Thanks for sharing your story, Kim, and the hope it can bring others. I believe the graph you're describing is the SAHMSA disastery recovery model and it is SO helpful as a psychoeducation tool and finding oneself in the recovery journey, understanding it has a shape that is repeated across disasters, where the setbacks often are, and that recovery is possible even though it takes a while. For anyone interested, you can find that graph here: (scroll down) https://disasterphilanthropy.org/cdp-resource/mental-health-grief-and-bereavement/
Yes. That was the chart. The nosedive after the honeymoon was….. well…. I can’t describe it. Worse than the actual event. But seeing the chart at that point in time gave me hope.
Dear Dr. Clark - Deeply sorry for everything you and your community have been through - it's an incredibly difficult journey. I've had both family members and friends also lose their homes in the Eaton Fire and been boots on the ground there 6 times since the fires to share lessons learned in Sonoma County and offer support and accompaniment. Thank you so much for sharing this feedback and we warmly welcome diverse perspectives. The intent is to co-create with practitioners and survivors and center their realities in the product development. Recovery is relational and community driven and technology cannot replace human support and connection. It also can't address the political forces at the federal level that withhold urgently needed funding. Would you be open to a conversation? We'd love to learn more about your experiences and thinking on these important issues. Thanks for considering! Adrienne
I’ve been a reader for a long time, and I debated leaving a comment on this since I read it earlier this month, but I’ve been thinking about it so much that I felt I had to. I am an Altadena resident and an Eaton Fire survivor (total loss), and with all respect for the excellent intentions that I believe you have, I think this is a terrible idea. I’m so sorry. I have watched the recovery process unfold since January 7th, and I have been on the front lines of that work, particularly on housing; please believe me when I tell you that what we need is money and housing at the household level. I am doing disaster case management, and I am here to tell you that there is virtually no way this tool can function effectively in the recovery landscape. I’d be happy to talk more about it, and admittedly I am strongly positioned against AI generally, but in this particular instance I think the solution you are proposing fundamentally misunderstands the needs on the ground.
I'm not sure Adrienne's response above was properly attached to your comment, so just pasting here to make sure you see it: "Dear Dr. Clark - Deeply sorry for everything you and your community have been through - it's an incredibly difficult journey. I've had both family members and friends also lose their homes in the Eaton Fire and been boots on the ground there 6 times since the fires to share lessons learned in Sonoma County and offer support and accompaniment. Thank you so much for sharing this feedback and we warmly welcome diverse perspectives. The intent is to co-create with practitioners and survivors and center their realities in the product development. Recovery is relational and community driven and technology cannot replace human support and connection. It also can't address the political forces at the federal level that withhold urgently needed funding. Would you be open to a conversation? We'd love to learn more about your experiences and thinking on these important issues. Thanks for considering! Adrienne"
This is super welcomed feedback, thank you for raising it here. Firstly, I'm so sorry for what you went through, and the total loss. I absolutely believe that what survivors need first and foremost is money and housing. That came out really clearly from the pilot study findings that this piece focuses on too. Thanks for offering to chat further about your perspective, I think that would be important. Dr Adrienne Heinz, who leads the R+D on this tool, has experienced multiple wildfires in her area in Sonoma County over the years, and as a result she overturned her research and clinical practice to focus on supporting survivors (see: https://unthinkable.substack.com/p/how-i-became-an-accidental-disaster?utm_source=publication-search). Since she leads the frontline work with communities on the ground for The After Collective, I will ask her if she'd like to learn more about your perspective. I appreciate the constructive criticism. The AI issue is significant.
There is a lot of computer-accessed assistance that can be provided without so-called "AI." You should provide an option that is FREE of that stuff, which many of us consider immoral & won't use. We won't use it AT ALL. Especially not after a disaster. It's important to re-analyze actual human needs for convenient information & assistance, and serve those DIRECTLY -- and not fall into the trap and illusion and marketing-thing-of-the-moment that is profoundly mislabeled & misguiding. ***** Disaster recovery is a full time job; directories & handbooks & reference charts & glossaries etc. are all appreciated, especially if they are kept up to date BY HUMANS. We actually did a better job of organizing information before the Internet, when things were ~slower~, and returning to the norm/expectation of tables of contents, basic taxonomies, basic flow-charts -- and nowadays basic Linktrees -- is what I strongly recommend. No cheaterbots. Actual collective wiki shared-knowledge and making processes direct/efficient/clear, not coping with an info-overloaded world with ever-more-complicated & misguided computer programs. Method matters. No more sorceror's apprentice brooms. ***** Don't let overcomplicated federal assistance programs off the hook by "coping" with them with cheaterbots, let alone "agentic" cheaterbots. Set norms for simplicity, clarity, & organization. That's what we really need -- for many future disasters. ***** Computers are good for A LOT of things, but we have to be wise about what we should and should not automate, and about how much of the earth's resources we're using. We do NOT need to be using as much data storage nor as much "compute" as we are now. That is not something to look away from nor to set to the side. Take hyper-energy-intensity as a red flag, and move to wiser methods that are inherently more energy-efficient and resource-efficient. There are good models out there, both from within the last 20 years, and from before the Internet. (a different "AW")
I refuse to use AI if at all possible. You could say I am part of the huge AI backlash because of the massive energy demands that are pushing back any progress on reducing emissions. My biggest concern with this project to use AI to help disaster victims is that people who are already overwhelmed by the disaster do not need AI feeding them bad information. AI is so often incorrect. These vulnerable victims could be led astray by AI slop. Now AI can be useful as a tool managed by real humans, such as nonprofits that are trying to organize the information fast to get it out to people, as long as those humans in the nonprofit know what is correct and what is not as they review the AI info. They can be a check on the inaccuracy of AI. I do hope that this is what the project is working toward. Frankly, I would not use this tool because I don't trust AI, but I'm not everyone, so I just hope those that use it to help others do so responsibly. The irony is that AI is making the climate disasters worse. And we have all read about how AI "therapy" has gone astray. I don't think that should be part of the program.
Thank you for this thoughtful approach to tools that can actually help and not inflict more harm. I have not been affected by a "natural disaster." However, I'm aging (78) in a system that was broken to start with and has been trashed in the last 2 yrs. I have friends who are housebound or even houseless who are further burdened by senseless, time consuming, repetitive paperwork to get the meager help that's available. We often say we need an ombudsman or at least someone with a higher executive brain function to help us navigate that swamp. The website you're creating could help with the disaster that is daily life for millions of marginalized people in the US and elsewhere.
And I appreciate your thoughful discussion of navigating the AI quandry. So many of the incredible tech developments of the last 50 years had the potential of making our lives and relationships so much richer but the drive for profits has highjacked those tools and turned them into weapons used to destroy our communities.
You have gained a new sponsor and my gratitude.
Thanks so much for your comment and support, Patricia. Yes the system has been trashed especially hard in the last 2 years, we are really hoping this tool can help fill a small but important part of that gash that's been opened.
OMG. I lived through hurricane Dorian’s bullseye hit. 9/1/2019. It took three full years to get back to square one, but I can say that my husband and I and many others pretty much fully recovered. Not everybody made it through those first three years. The single most important factor that helped ME get through at the beginning was seeing a graph showing how disasters work. The line that had multiple drops in it, but finally got back on track. Until I saw that graph I did not understand what we were going through, or had to go through next. It was instantly recognizable and super helpful to my mental state. Anyway, disaster recovery IS possible, we did it, I love our new house and our garden has exploded with life. I live in Hopetown, Abaco, Bahamas.
Thanks for sharing your story, Kim, and the hope it can bring others. I believe the graph you're describing is the SAHMSA disastery recovery model and it is SO helpful as a psychoeducation tool and finding oneself in the recovery journey, understanding it has a shape that is repeated across disasters, where the setbacks often are, and that recovery is possible even though it takes a while. For anyone interested, you can find that graph here: (scroll down) https://disasterphilanthropy.org/cdp-resource/mental-health-grief-and-bereavement/
Yes. That was the chart. The nosedive after the honeymoon was….. well…. I can’t describe it. Worse than the actual event. But seeing the chart at that point in time gave me hope.
Dear Dr. Clark - Deeply sorry for everything you and your community have been through - it's an incredibly difficult journey. I've had both family members and friends also lose their homes in the Eaton Fire and been boots on the ground there 6 times since the fires to share lessons learned in Sonoma County and offer support and accompaniment. Thank you so much for sharing this feedback and we warmly welcome diverse perspectives. The intent is to co-create with practitioners and survivors and center their realities in the product development. Recovery is relational and community driven and technology cannot replace human support and connection. It also can't address the political forces at the federal level that withhold urgently needed funding. Would you be open to a conversation? We'd love to learn more about your experiences and thinking on these important issues. Thanks for considering! Adrienne
I’ve been a reader for a long time, and I debated leaving a comment on this since I read it earlier this month, but I’ve been thinking about it so much that I felt I had to. I am an Altadena resident and an Eaton Fire survivor (total loss), and with all respect for the excellent intentions that I believe you have, I think this is a terrible idea. I’m so sorry. I have watched the recovery process unfold since January 7th, and I have been on the front lines of that work, particularly on housing; please believe me when I tell you that what we need is money and housing at the household level. I am doing disaster case management, and I am here to tell you that there is virtually no way this tool can function effectively in the recovery landscape. I’d be happy to talk more about it, and admittedly I am strongly positioned against AI generally, but in this particular instance I think the solution you are proposing fundamentally misunderstands the needs on the ground.
I'm not sure Adrienne's response above was properly attached to your comment, so just pasting here to make sure you see it: "Dear Dr. Clark - Deeply sorry for everything you and your community have been through - it's an incredibly difficult journey. I've had both family members and friends also lose their homes in the Eaton Fire and been boots on the ground there 6 times since the fires to share lessons learned in Sonoma County and offer support and accompaniment. Thank you so much for sharing this feedback and we warmly welcome diverse perspectives. The intent is to co-create with practitioners and survivors and center their realities in the product development. Recovery is relational and community driven and technology cannot replace human support and connection. It also can't address the political forces at the federal level that withhold urgently needed funding. Would you be open to a conversation? We'd love to learn more about your experiences and thinking on these important issues. Thanks for considering! Adrienne"
This is super welcomed feedback, thank you for raising it here. Firstly, I'm so sorry for what you went through, and the total loss. I absolutely believe that what survivors need first and foremost is money and housing. That came out really clearly from the pilot study findings that this piece focuses on too. Thanks for offering to chat further about your perspective, I think that would be important. Dr Adrienne Heinz, who leads the R+D on this tool, has experienced multiple wildfires in her area in Sonoma County over the years, and as a result she overturned her research and clinical practice to focus on supporting survivors (see: https://unthinkable.substack.com/p/how-i-became-an-accidental-disaster?utm_source=publication-search). Since she leads the frontline work with communities on the ground for The After Collective, I will ask her if she'd like to learn more about your perspective. I appreciate the constructive criticism. The AI issue is significant.
There is a lot of computer-accessed assistance that can be provided without so-called "AI." You should provide an option that is FREE of that stuff, which many of us consider immoral & won't use. We won't use it AT ALL. Especially not after a disaster. It's important to re-analyze actual human needs for convenient information & assistance, and serve those DIRECTLY -- and not fall into the trap and illusion and marketing-thing-of-the-moment that is profoundly mislabeled & misguiding. ***** Disaster recovery is a full time job; directories & handbooks & reference charts & glossaries etc. are all appreciated, especially if they are kept up to date BY HUMANS. We actually did a better job of organizing information before the Internet, when things were ~slower~, and returning to the norm/expectation of tables of contents, basic taxonomies, basic flow-charts -- and nowadays basic Linktrees -- is what I strongly recommend. No cheaterbots. Actual collective wiki shared-knowledge and making processes direct/efficient/clear, not coping with an info-overloaded world with ever-more-complicated & misguided computer programs. Method matters. No more sorceror's apprentice brooms. ***** Don't let overcomplicated federal assistance programs off the hook by "coping" with them with cheaterbots, let alone "agentic" cheaterbots. Set norms for simplicity, clarity, & organization. That's what we really need -- for many future disasters. ***** Computers are good for A LOT of things, but we have to be wise about what we should and should not automate, and about how much of the earth's resources we're using. We do NOT need to be using as much data storage nor as much "compute" as we are now. That is not something to look away from nor to set to the side. Take hyper-energy-intensity as a red flag, and move to wiser methods that are inherently more energy-efficient and resource-efficient. There are good models out there, both from within the last 20 years, and from before the Internet. (a different "AW")
I refuse to use AI if at all possible. You could say I am part of the huge AI backlash because of the massive energy demands that are pushing back any progress on reducing emissions. My biggest concern with this project to use AI to help disaster victims is that people who are already overwhelmed by the disaster do not need AI feeding them bad information. AI is so often incorrect. These vulnerable victims could be led astray by AI slop. Now AI can be useful as a tool managed by real humans, such as nonprofits that are trying to organize the information fast to get it out to people, as long as those humans in the nonprofit know what is correct and what is not as they review the AI info. They can be a check on the inaccuracy of AI. I do hope that this is what the project is working toward. Frankly, I would not use this tool because I don't trust AI, but I'm not everyone, so I just hope those that use it to help others do so responsibly. The irony is that AI is making the climate disasters worse. And we have all read about how AI "therapy" has gone astray. I don't think that should be part of the program.