The purpose of quirky interview questions has evolved. Beyond just assessing personality, questions about non-work achievements or hypothetical scenarios are now used to jolt candidates out of scripted answers and expose those relying on mid-interview AI prompts for assistance.

To test complex AI prompts for tasks like customer persona generation without exposing sensitive company data, first ask the AI to create realistic, synthetic data (e.g., fake sales call notes). This allows you to safely develop and refine prompts before applying them to real, proprietary information, overcoming data privacy hurdles in experimentation.

When using LLMs to analyze unstructured data like interview transcripts, they often hallucinate compelling but non-existent quotes. To maintain integrity, always include a specific prompt instruction like "use quotes and cite your sources from the transcript for each quote." This forces the AI to ground its analysis in actual data.

After an initial analysis, use a "stress-testing" prompt that forces the LLM to verify its own findings, check for contradictions, and correct its mistakes. This verification step is crucial for building confidence in the AI's output and creating bulletproof insights.

The key to reliable AI-powered user research is not novel prompting, but structuring AI tasks to mirror the methodical steps of a human researcher. This involves sequential analysis, verification, and synthesis, which prevents the AI from jumping to conclusions and hallucinating.

A powerful and simple method to ensure the accuracy of AI outputs, such as market research citations, is to prompt the AI to review and validate its own work. The AI will often identify its own hallucinations or errors, providing a crucial layer of quality control before data is used for decision-making.

A key principle for reliable AI is giving it an explicit 'out.' By telling the AI it's acceptable to admit failure or lack of knowledge, you reduce the model's tendency to hallucinate, confabulate, or fake task completion, which leads to more truthful and reliable behavior.

To ensure scientific validity and mitigate the risk of AI hallucinations, a hybrid approach is most effective. By combining AI's pattern-matching capabilities with traditional physics-based simulation methods, researchers can create a feedback loop where one system validates the other, increasing confidence in the final results.

Instead of seeking a "magical system" for AI quality, the most effective starting point is a manual process called error analysis. This involves spending a few hours reading through ~100 random user interactions, taking simple notes on failures, and then categorizing those notes to identify the most common problems.