To ensure accuracy in its legal AI, LexisNexis unexpectedly hired a large number of lawyers, not just data scientists. These legal experts are crucial for reviewing AI output, identifying errors, and training the models, highlighting the essential role of human domain expertise in specialized AI.

LLMs have hit a wall by scraping nearly all available public data. The next phase of AI development and competitive differentiation will come from training models on high-quality, proprietary data generated by human experts. This creates a booming "data as a service" industry for companies like Micro One that recruit and manage these experts.

In regulated industries, AI's value isn't perfect breach detection but efficiently filtering millions of calls to identify a small, ambiguous subset needing human review. This shifts the goal from flawless accuracy to dramatically improving the efficiency and focus of human compliance officers.

AI excels at tasks like account scoring and initial insight gathering, providing a massive head start. However, the final strategic layer—interpreting the data and crafting the value proposition—requires human expertise. This "human first, AI fast" approach maximizes efficiency without sacrificing quality.

Don't wait for AI to be perfect. The correct strategy is to apply current AI models—which are roughly 60-80% accurate—to business processes where that level of performance is sufficient for a human to then review and bring to 100%. Chasing perfection in-house is a waste of resources given the pace of model improvement.

AI models lack access to the rich, contextual signals from physical, real-world interactions. Humans will remain essential because their job is to participate in this world, gather unique context from experiences like customer conversations, and feed it into AI systems, which cannot glean it on their own.

To ensure product quality, Fixer pitted its AI against 10 of its own human executive assistants on the same tasks. They refused to launch features until the AI could consistently outperform the humans on accuracy, using their service business as a direct training and validation engine.

Internal surveys highlight a critical paradox in AI adoption: while over 80% of Stack Overflow's developer community uses or plans to use AI, only 29% trust its output. This significant "trust gap" explains persistent user skepticism and creates a market opportunity for verified, human-curated data.

The traditional marketing focus on acquiring 'more data' for larger audiences is becoming obsolete. As AI increasingly drives content and offer generation, the cost of bad data skyrockets. Flawed inputs no longer just waste ad spend; they create poor experiences, making data quality, not quantity, the new imperative.