{
  "id": 10495583,
  "title": "What Would A Serious AI Product Look Like?",
  "url": "https://urgent.news/2026/09/28/what-would-a-serious-ai-product-look-like",
  "topic": "ai",
  "section": "AI",
  "published": "2026-09-28T17:01:01.000Z",
  "source": {
    "name": "Lobsters",
    "slug": "lobsters",
    "url": "https://blog.glyph.im/2026/09/serious-ai-product.html"
  },
  "original_language": "en",
  "account": "One of the key issues with current AI products is their lack of seriousness in presenting their capabilities. Numerous chatbots claim to be powerful problem-solving tools, yet they exhibit a clear disregard for the truth. Even before considering the significant ethical concerns surrounding frontier labs, this insincere demeanor of their design makes users doubt the authenticity of these tools. Constantly interacting with these chatbots leaves one with the impression that they are not software products but rather deceptive schemes to create a false sense of security.\n\nThe most prominent offenders in this regard are the frontier labs, but this criticism applies equally to other products like Ollama, which may require these features even more urgently due to poorer available models. The essence of the problem lies in the fact that AI systems cannot reliably provide accurate information. This issue is repeatedly highlighted in news articles and studies, but the necessity remains undisputed. Every chatbot explicitly informs users that they may make mistakes, which is usually presented in fine-print disclaimers integrated into the user interface.\n\nThese warnings, though necessary, are often obscured in small, gray text, usually meant to push responsibility back onto the user rather than to provide actual assistance. This limitation is a core aspect of all AI products. To address this weakness, a serious AI product would implement a checkbox next to every claim in its output, prompting users to verify the accuracy of each statement before accepting it. For coding assistants, a similar approach would be beneficial. Currently, this responsibility is often offloaded to code reviewers, creating a subtle pattern that encourages users to bypass the verification process and speed up their work.\n\nAnother area where AI products can improve is in their handling of citations. Instead of just providing random snippets, these products should present citations as a list of clearly marked sources for each claim. The citations should be prominently displayed, including metadata such as the site of origin, publication date, and author's name. The actual quotation should be front-and-center, larger than any AI-generated text, while the AI-generated summary should be presented in smaller text, de-emphasized until the user verifies its accuracy. Incorporating a \"did you read the citation\" checkbox could further enhance the verification process, especially for research projects. By adopting these measures, AI products can move beyond mere grifts to become genuinely useful tools for research and software development.",
  "summary": null,
  "key_points": [],
  "editors_take": null,
  "illustration": null,
  "coverage": {
    "outlets": 1,
    "also_reported_by": []
  },
  "ai_generated": true,
  "disclaimer": "Summaries, key points and the editor’s take are written by software from other outlets’ reporting and may contain errors — always check the linked original."
}