1. Traditional fraud solutions use ML models such as XGBoost to detect fraud, but these models are dependent on quality labeled data which many businesses do not have. We address this by using “System One” decision models in additional to traditional models such as XGBoost and logistic regression. This allows you to incorporate plain language questions such as “Is this a throwaway email” into your decisioning, bypassing the need for large amounts of labeled data. This also allows you to capture aspects of fraud that are more unstructured, which is something that XGBoost models struggle with.
2. Fraud teams are facing off with live players that are constantly changing their behavior to bypass the detection logic they have in place. You can train a detection model or define a ruleset once, but it will become obsolete in a matter of weeks as fraudsters figure out what your detection logic is. This means that you need a team regularly training models and updating rules based on new fraud patterns. Typically this takes a large data science/ML team. Kairos addresses this by introducing an MCP server, so that your agent (Claude Code, Cursor, Codex, etc.) can define a decision workflow, train models on your data, and pick the variant that performs best.
You can self-host Kairos with Docker or use the hosted version at https://kairos.finic.ai
And an AI safety organization: https://kairos-project.org/
And a DARPA program: https://www.darpa.mil/research/programs/knowledge-directed-a...
Pick any ancient greek word and you'll probably find at least a handful of collisions.
If you are not associated with a core decision team, it is considered nice to avoid confusing the public. In my opinion, gleaning donations is just theft. =3
My only active FOSS project right now is a unpublished 3D volumetric slicer for a home metal printer that won't be public for another 2 to 3 years for various trade reasons. I code mostly for fun these days, and the dude doesn't sound like fun to work around. =3
I have no FOSS projects, I'm not sure I entirely agree with it all, there's an element of "getting developers to create free stuff for corporations". I notice there are no "FOSS" architecture plans, or any other professional output. But I digress. Good for you :)
One can't do a OSS project expecting other people to give a toss, but rather it solves a niche issue you and 5 other hobbyists encountered. =3
Now mostly focused on rather boring small stuff... like sub-micron boring... Have a wonderful day =3
The amount of abuse these people endure from general users is a classic rerun. =3
Don't get me started on people who use "decision on" to mean "enforce a decision" (i.e. by blocking an action)
We found that we would work on a new technique over a period of weeks or months, and then they would find a way to work around our technique in a single weekend.
Rinse and repeat.
The only thing that has changed is that the market for scammers has moved, and they’ve gotten a lot better and faster at adapting to your protection techniques.
You can't slap "ing" on a noun. It's for verbs. Stop nouning.
Would it be better if they invented a completely new word, with no clue as to what it means, rather than adapt an existing language structure to their purpose, which everyone understands immediately (even if they get grumpy at it)?
How'd that work out?
From that, I think the main problem is defining AAE (or Ebonics which appears to be a synonym) as a different language. AAE is probably more understandable to the average English speaker than the dialect of NE England [0].
So, to answer your question: I think that the term Ebonics didn't really work out, but otherwise it's going OK. There are multiple different dialects of English, of which AAE (Ebonics) is one, and they all use different words, not all of those words are in the dictionary or used in the manner that the OP is talking about, and they are all English.
How do you think it worked out?
Could you explain how "System One" differs from the traditional, rule based, approach? Sticking to your example: How would the question 'Is this a throwaway email?' be translated into Kairos business logic?
When using the MCP Server: How does Claude develop such models, e.g. feature engineering? Is this an MLOps pipeline behind an MCP?