You could display the confidence or click through to the reasoning. Then the user can better understand the quality of the answer.
Sent from my iPad > On 17 Jun 2017, at 5:08 am, Pine W <[email protected]> wrote: > > Perhaps of interest. > > Pine > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Chris Koerner <[email protected]> > Date: Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 8:31 AM > Subject: [Design] Design in the Era of the Algorithm > To: [email protected] > > > Josh Clark on design principles for addressing flaws in machine learning. > (via waxy.org)\ > > "The answer machines have an overconfidence problem. It’s not only a > data-science problem that the algorithm returns bad conclusions. It’s a > problem of presentation: the interface suggests that there’s one true > answer, offering it up with a confidence that is unjustified. > > So this is a design problem, too. The presentation fails to set appropriate > expectations or context, and instead presents a bad answer with > matter-of-fact assurance. As we learn to present machine-originated > content, we face a very hard question: how might we add some productive > humility to these interfaces to temper their overconfidence? > > I have ideas." > > https://bigmedium.com/speaking/design-in-the-era-of-the-algorithm.html > > Yours, > Chris Koerner > Community Liaison - Discovery > Wikimedia Foundation > > _______________________________________________ > Design mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/design > _______________________________________________ > Wiki-research-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
