🚨 AI That Doesn’t Fit

The Hidden Cost of Skipping Research

A few months back, regulators came knocking on Cleo AI’s door. The fintech’s chatbot had become a hit by offering instant cash advances—until users discovered, after entering billing details, that the fine print didn’t match the promise.

The tech wasn’t broken. But trust was.

AI risk doesn’t only show up as bias or hallucination. Sometimes it’s a well-intentioned feature surfacing at the worst possible moment—after the customer has already committed.

Picture this: you’re signing paperwork at a car dealership, pen hovering, when the salesperson suddenly blurts, “Wait! Want a different car?” Helpful? Hardly. Trust-breaking? Absolutely.

That’s what happens when AI gets rushed into workflows without user research or validation. The model performs. The integration backfires.

Here’s the contrarian take:
The biggest AI risk isn’t bias or hallucination—it’s bad placement in the user journey.

Let’s unpack why skipping upfront research quietly kills adoption.

1. AI without context feels like sabotage

Drop AI into the wrong workflow moment, and it doesn’t feel like help—it feels like interference. Users interpret mistimed suggestions as cluelessness.

Think of Microsoft Teams’ AI summarizing meetings before the last speaker finishes. Great feature, wrong moment.

2. Risk is invisible until it isn’t

Without risk analysis, product leaders don’t see the small failures that pile up into reputational disasters.

  • A 2024/25 large‑scale patient survey revealed the majority of U.S. adults distrust healthcare systems to use AI responsibly, even when there is no direct evidence of a safety issue. Many patients say that lack of transparency or unexpected AI behavior—such as prompts or recommendations that feel irrelevant—erode their confidence in the system. Although these features may not harm medically, they reduce perceived legitimacy and trust.

AI risk isn’t just about compliance. It’s about perception.

3. Control = trust currency

Users want AI that helps but never hijacks. Without upfront testing, teams over-automate: auto-sending emails, auto-deleting files, auto-canceling meetings.

What they miss is the simple truth: Every irreversible action without confirmation erodes trust.

4. Validation beats velocity

Startups racing to “ship AI fast” often assume user adoption will follow. But 2025 is full of quiet cautionary tales:

  • HR platforms with automated screening tools discriminating against race, age, and disability Workday lawsuit (Mobley v. Workday)
  • Retail chatbots that don’t respond well when users deviate from expected paths or the flow breaks —leading to abandonment rates higher than before AI.

Speed without validation creates rework. Rework is the slowest ship of all.

5. The cost of not asking: where does AI belong?

Every workflow has “golden moments” where AI can shine—helping reduce effort, clarify confusion, or add options. But those moments are never obvious from inside the sprint.

Teams that skip research don’t just risk bad UX. They risk building AI that solves the wrong problem.

🧪 Try This This Week

Pick one AI feature in your pipeline. Ask:

  • What’s the riskiest thing this feature could do at the wrong time?
  • Where’s the exact moment users actually want this support?
  • What control do they need before the AI acts?

Better yet, run a 30-minute “red team” session: invite skeptics to poke holes in placement, timing, and control.

🤔 Seen this happen in your org?

Where’s the most painful place AI got dropped into your product? I’d love to hear the stories—because they’re the fastest way we all learn.

đź”— Recommended


Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*