How to Iteratively Improve AI-Generated Research Guides (Full Transcript)

AI won’t automatically avoid bias or leading questions; use explicit prompts and multiple review rounds to refine research guides for clarity and engagement.
Download Transcript (DOCX)
Speakers
add Add new speaker

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: Now, I know what you're thinking. Why doesn't the AI just avoid these mistakes automatically? Shouldn't it know, for example, that leading questions are bad? Well, it has the information, but AI works off patterns, not judgment. So unless you explicitly instruct it to check for bias or confusion, you get what you get. With reflection, we can go through as many rounds as we like. First, we checked for bias and leading questions. Then upon review of the new iteration, we may ask for additional improvements. For example, we might notice that the guide seems a little boring. So we might tell the AI, Review the guide and identify any parts that might feel boring or onerous to participants. Then you as the researcher can decide which identified parts should, in fact, be replaced.

ai AI Insights
Arow Summary
The speaker explains that AI doesn’t automatically avoid issues like bias or leading questions because it primarily matches patterns rather than exercising human judgment. To improve outputs, users must explicitly instruct the AI to review for specific problems (e.g., bias, confusion) and iterate through multiple reflection rounds. After fixing core issues, additional passes can focus on participant experience, such as identifying parts of a research guide that may feel boring or onerous, leaving the researcher to decide what to change.
Arow Title
Why AI Needs Explicit Instructions to Reduce Bias
Arow Keywords
AI Remove
pattern recognition Remove
judgment Remove
bias Remove
leading questions Remove
reflection Remove
iteration Remove
research guide Remove
participant experience Remove
prompting Remove
Arow Key Takeaways
  • AI operates on learned patterns and may not self-correct for research-quality issues without explicit prompts.
  • Use iterative reflection rounds to check for bias, leading questions, and confusion.
  • After addressing methodological flaws, evaluate tone and engagement (e.g., boring or onerous sections).
  • Researchers should retain final judgment on which AI-suggested changes to adopt.
Arow Sentiments
Neutral: The tone is explanatory and pragmatic, focusing on how to iteratively improve AI-generated research materials without expressing strong positive or negative emotion.
Arow Enter your query
{{ secondsToHumanTime(time) }}
Back
Forward
{{ Math.round(speed * 100) / 100 }}x
{{ secondsToHumanTime(duration) }}
close
New speaker
Add speaker
close
Edit speaker
Save changes
close
Share Transcript