

Why People Quit Your AI After One Mistake | Episode 468
Get the free Core Drives in the Wild guide, behavioral design applied to real products: professorgame.com/WildCD Episode Summary Rob breaks down algorithm aversion, showing why people abandon an AI tool after its first visible mistake, even when it outperforms them. He covers the 2015 and 2018 Wharton studies by Dietvorst, Simmons and Massey, where letting people adjust a model's forecasts by as little as 2 points out of 100 lifted the share who chose it from 47% to 68%, and connects them to Core Drives 3, 4 and 8. He also explains why he keeps using the AI that helps prepare this show, despite it inventing proof every week. Listeners learn how to design a small, bounded handle for AI rollouts and how to tell a real control from a placebo button. About the Host Rob Alvarez is Head of Engagement Strategy, Europe at The Octalysis Group (TOG), a leading gamification and behavioral design consultancy. A globally recognized gamification strategist and TEDx speaker, he founded and hosts Professor Game, the #1 gamification podcast, and has interviewed hundreds of global experts. He designs evidence-based engagement systems that drive motivation, loyalty, and results, and teaches LEGO® SERIOUS PLAY® and gamification at top institutions including IE Business School, EFMD, and EBS University across Europe, the Americas, and Asia. Key Takeaways In Dietvorst, Simmons and Massey's 2015 Wharton studies, people who watched a statistical model make forecasts were less likely to bet on it, even after seeing it outperform a human forecaster. In the 2018 follow-up, only 32% chose a forecasting model they could not change, while 76% chose the same model when they could adjust each forecast by up to 10 percentiles. The size of the handle barely mattered: 71%, 71% and 68% chose the model when allowed to adjust by 10, 5 or 2 points, against 47% when no adjustment was allowed. People who could adjust the model were less shaken by its errors and later handed over completely more often, 30% versus 12%. A small handle is how people learn to let go. Two rollout failures mirror each other: full autonomy dies at the first visible mistake (Core Drive 8, Loss & Avoidance), and approval on every step turns people into rubber stamps. An approval step nobody ever uses to change anything works like the door-close button in most US elevators. Core Drive 3 (Empowerment of Creativity & Feedback) needs a control that really changes the outcome. Topics Covered 0:00: The AI that lies to me every week 1:17: Gartner's 40% and what their list leaves out 2:16: Why we fire machines for mistakes we forgive in people 4:11: Two points of control changed the numbers 6:17: Calibrated trust and Core Drives 3 and 4 8:55: Full autonomy vs approval on everything 10:10: Approval steps as placebo buttons 11:35: How to build a small, bounded handle 13:16: Four questions for your own AI rollout 14:06: Where the research stops 14:52: What could they have done about it? Mentioned in This Episode Algorithm Aversion: People Erroneously Avoid Algorithms after Seeing Them Err (Dietvorst, Simmons & Massey, 2015) Overcoming Algorithm Aversion: People Will Use Imperfect Algorithms If They Can (Even Slightly) Modify Them (Dietvorst, Simmons & Massey, 2018) Gartner: Over 40% of Agentic AI Projects Will Be Canceled by End of 2027 Understanding Algorithm Aversion: When Do People Abandon AIs When They See Them Err? (MIT Initiative on the Digital Economy) The Octalysis Framework by Yu-kai Chou Free Resources and Get in Touch Core Drives in the Wild: Professor Game Free Guide Get Daily Value on Your Email Let's chat about your gamification project YouTube LinkedIn Instagram Facebook Start Your Community on Skool for Free Ask a question
- Transcript


















