this post was submitted on 01 Nov 2026
869 points (99.1% liked)
Technology
89443 readers
4464 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Humans, in aggregate, behave consistently when presented with structured prompts. The trick with new technology is to figure out what presentation of the information results in the desired behavior of checking for AI blind spots. An example with Flock is that they don't present partial matches any differently than complete matches - in that case the improvement of describing partial matches as incomplete is obvious, but other triggers for human common reactions are more challenging to tease out. But it can be done!
I believe if regulators set up a system to encourage research and implementation of responsible data presentation - meaning outputs that make it easy for humans to have appropriate trust and add checking as needed - that would have more positive and lasting impacts than a ban.
How about don't present partial matches, demand more data first to raise certainty of the results. Especially partial matches against open ended data sets is wildly unsafe in almost every case (eg. not already having suspects).
Responsible presentation is sometimes not at all, if the user isn't an expert.