An AI model can meet all technical criteria (correctness, relevance) yet produce outputs that are tonally inappropriate or off-brand. Ex-Alexa PM Polly Allen shared how a factually correct answer about COVID was insensitive, proving product leaders must inject human judgment into AI evaluation.
Related Insights
Popular benchmarks like MMLU are inadequate for evaluating sovereign AI models. They primarily test multiple-choice knowledge extraction but miss a model's ability to generate culturally nuanced, fluent, and appropriate long-form text. This necessitates creating new, culturally specific evaluation tools.
An AI that confidently provides wrong answers erodes user trust more than one that admits uncertainty. Designing for "humility" by showing confidence indicators, citing sources, or even refusing to answer is a superior strategy for building long-term user confidence and managing hallucinations.
AI tools rarely produce perfect results initially. The user's critical role is to serve as a creative director, not just an operator. This means iteratively refining prompts, demanding better scripts, and correcting logical flaws in the output to avoid generic, low-quality content.
People overestimate AI's 'out-of-the-box' capability. Successful AI products require extensive work on data pipelines, context tuning, and continuous model training based on output. It's not a plug-and-play solution that magically produces correct responses.
Current AI models often provide long-winded, overly nuanced answers, a stark contrast to the confident brevity of human experts. This stylistic difference, not factual accuracy, is now the easiest way to distinguish AI from a human in conversation, suggesting a new dimension to the Turing test focused on communication style.
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.
Features designed for delight, like AI summaries, can become deeply upsetting in sensitive situations such as breakups or grief. Product teams must rigorously test for these emotional corner cases to avoid causing significant user harm and brand damage, as seen with Apple and WhatsApp.
When Alexa AI first launched generative answers, the biggest hurdle wasn't just technology. It was moving the company culture from highly curated, predictable responses to accepting AI's inherent risks. This forced new, difficult conversations about risk tolerance among stakeholders.
Developers often test AI systems with well-formed, correctly spelled questions. However, real users submit vague, typo-ridden, and ambiguous prompts. Directly analyzing these raw logs is the most crucial first step to understanding how your product fails in the real world and where to focus quality improvements.
The concept of "taste" is demystified as the crucial human act of defining boundaries for what is good or right. An LLM, having seen everything, lacks opinion. Without a human specifying these constraints, AI will only produce generic, undesirable output—or "AI slop." The creator's opinion is the essential ingredient.
