Today i have noticed the error rate really skyrocketed. It wasn’t really doing that well since o4 was shipped, o3 has been quite unusable for some time now. Kinda fed up with the things its spewing at me i opened a conversation with it about it’s inner workings and came up with an idea on how to fix it.
Make the conversations more humanlike. This feature would be optional and i let the ai generate a report about the idea, here it izz
Title: Interactive AI via Game-Dialogue Flow: A New Standard for Understanding and Reliability
Introduction:
Current AI models (like GPT) are designed for immediate output: the user types something, and the AI responds instantly. While fast, this often leads to misinterpretations, inaccurate answers, and user frustration. What’s missing is a simple, effective way to confirm that the AI has correctly understood the user’s intent before generating an answer.
Proposal:
Introduce an optional “game dialogue” flow for AI interaction. After receiving a prompt, the AI returns a summary of what it thinks the user means. The user is then presented with three intuitive options:
- Yes – confirms that the AI understood correctly.
- No – the interpretation is wrong; the AI asks for clarification.
- Explain Further – the user gets a text box to elaborate further.
Only after confirmation does the AI generate the final output.
Why this approach works:
| Advantage | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Lower error rate | Reduces risk of misinterpreting prompts. |
| Familiar UX | Users recognize the flow from RPG or game dialogues. |
| Quick confirmation | One click to proceed or redirect the response. |
| Deeper accuracy when needed | Especially useful in complex, ethical, or technical queries. |
| Optional | Users in a hurry can skip the step or disable it entirely. |
Example Flow:
User: “How do I create a stable growing environment for carnivorous plants indoors?”
AI:
“I think you’re asking how to set up an indoor growing environment for carnivorous plants like Venus flytraps, including temperature, light, and feeding. Is that correct?”
Yes
No
Explain Further
(Only after clicking “Yes” does the AI return a full answer.)
Technical Feasibility:
- Does not require core model changes.
- Implemented as a UX layer on top of existing chat systems.
- Can be toggled on/off via user settings (e.g., “advanced mode”).
- Ideal for education, legal, medical, or engineering applications.
Strategic Benefits for Developers:
- Builds trust with advanced users.
- Reduces the risk of misfires that cause reputational or legal harm.
- Offers a competitive edge over AI platforms with passive, one-shot outputs.
Conclusion:
This approach puts control back in the user’s hands without adding complexity. By inserting a lightweight confirmation step, AI can operate more reliably, transparently, and human-like. It’s a small change with big impact — and a necessary evolution in the design of language models.