This hope comes from the fact that we don't fully understand how life originated on earth but we do know that it pretty much happened as soon as conditions allowed (geologically speaking).
So although it's a big unknown, it seems to suggest the barrier to first life might be on the lower side. So it's worth exploring anywhere that's had water (prerequisite for lots of interesting chemistry) and tectonic activity (zones of varied temperature).
Having a certain mass is also an indicator as this increases the likelihood of comet and asteroid collisions in the past, which as far as earth goes it's thought these might have carried useful molecules for life that had generated as a result of cosmic rays acting on more basic compounds on the comets surface. (NASA has found some amino acids and other pre-organic compounds on comets)
Also worth pointing out that the expectation is usually that if there are signs of life it'll be long dead. It's possible there's a window in the geological evolution of some planet/moons that makes basic replicating life not just possible but likely. That would at least offer an explanation of why earth's life arose so early. Places like Mars and Europa may have briefly supported life in the past before conditions became unsustainable. It's worth checking just in case it's still going!
I suppose it adds some context. They aren't separate adoptive dads who've cooperated to abused their respective sons, neither did the state allow an adoption to two single straight men living together- that they're a gay couple explains the situation.
Ok, that's great. I get what you're trying to do now.
I think in terms of getting input I can only suggest that deliberately invoking Cunningham's law is probably going to get you more responses that anything else. You are honest and upfront about the code being unstable but this is unlikely to motivate someone to audit it for you. Simply stating it's the most secure web chat available for x reasons is more likely to motivate someone to prove you wrong. Even if their motivations are negative you might still find the insight valuable..
I suspect such a model would have to be far more attuned to its data being smaller but trustworthy. Something like chatGPT for example requires a huge volume because it's weakly affected by any particular datum going in. It's designed to adapt to general conversation norms, rather than specific facts. If you could take a generalist like chatGPT and combine it with an expert model that's been told everything it's told has a huge weighting then that would probably be a big step forward.
Search is eventually going to be so enshitified that the way to actually find out things is going to fall back on "ask someone you trust who knows things you don't". At least by that point those trustworthy people should be better informed than in the past..
I'm going to need class 101 on 411 as I've no idea what it is