Generative AI is predictive and imperfect, unable to self-correct. A 'guardian agent'—a separate AI system—is required to monitor, score, and rewrite content produced by other AIs to enforce brand, style, and compliance standards, creating a necessary system of checks and balances.

Related Insights

Unlike platforms like YouTube that merely host user-uploaded content, new generative AI platforms are directly involved in creating the content themselves. This fundamental shift from distributor to creator introduces a new level of brand and moral responsibility for the platform's output.

Instead of manual reviews for all AI-generated content, use a 'guardian agent' to assign a quality score based on brand and style compliance. This score can then act as an automated trigger: high-scoring content is published automatically, while low-scoring content is routed for human review.

Contrary to the popular belief that generative AI is easily jailbroken, modern models now use multi-step reasoning chains. They unpack prompts, hydrate them with context before generation, and run checks after generation. This makes it significantly harder for users to accidentally or intentionally create harmful or brand-violating content.

Instead of manually refining a complex prompt, create a process where an AI agent evaluates its own output. By providing a framework for self-critique, including quantitative scores and qualitative reasoning, the AI can iteratively enhance its own system instructions and achieve a much stronger result.

Generative AI tools are only as good as the content they're trained on. Lenovo intentionally delayed activating an AI search feature because they lacked confidence in their content governance. Without a system to ensure content is accurate and up-to-date, AI tools risk providing false information, which erodes seller trust.

AI's unpredictability requires more than just better models. Product teams must work with researchers on training data and specific evaluations for sensitive content. Simultaneously, the UI must clearly differentiate between original and AI-generated content to facilitate effective human oversight.

The primary challenge for large organizations is not just AI making mistakes, but the uncontrolled fragmentation of its use. With employees using different LLMs across various departments, maintaining a single source of truth for brand and governance becomes nearly impossible without a centralized control system.

To improve the quality and accuracy of an AI agent's output, spawn multiple sub-agents with competing or adversarial roles. For example, a code review agent finds bugs, while several "auditor" agents check for false positives, resulting in a more reliable final analysis.

While AI models excel at gathering and synthesizing information ('knowing'), they are not yet reliable at executing actions in the real world ('doing'). True agentic systems require bridging this gap by adding crucial layers of validation and human intervention to ensure tasks are performed correctly and safely.

For enterprises, scaling AI content without built-in governance is reckless. Rather than manual policing, guardrails like brand rules, compliance checks, and audit trails must be integrated from the start. The principle is "AI drafts, people approve," ensuring speed without sacrificing safety.

AI 'Guardian Agents' Are Needed to Oversee Flawed Content-Generating AI | RiffOn