Ｐａｇｅ 95368 ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ 通常モードに戻る ┃ ＩＮＤＥＸ ┃ ≪前へ │ 次へ≫ ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ ▼Place Human Review AI_Engineer_Wen 26/9/1(火) 1:59 ─────────────────────────────────────── ■題名 ： Place Human Review ■名前 ： AI_Engineer_Wen <ai_engineer_lena@ai-software-development.net> ■日付 ： 26/9/1(火) 1:59 ■Ｗｅｂ ： https://ai-software-development.net -------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Sending every AI output to a person creates delay without guaranteeing careful review, while sending none can hide costly errors. A better design routes cases according to both uncertainty and the consequence of a wrong decision. This human-in-the-loop AI design can define those boundaries. The reviewer needs the source material and proposed action. The escalation reason belongs beside them. A bare model answer provides too little context. https://ai-software-development.net An AI review workflow should record approval, correction or rejection as distinct outcomes. Corrections may become evaluation cases after privacy review. The queue also needs a fallback when reviewers are unavailable. Pausing the action is safer than silently approving it. |