AI systems operate with inherent uncertainty. They make predictions, classifications, and recommendations based on probabilities, not certainties.
Designing for uncertainty means explicitly acknowledging that AI systems can be wrong, incomplete, or ambiguous, and shaping interactions so users are not misled into false confidence.
Uncertainty is not a flaw to hide, but a property to surface and manage.
A human-centered approach avoids binary outcomes (“right/wrong”) and instead communicates confidence levels, assumptions, and limits, enabling users to make informed decisions and apply appropriate judgment.
Users should understand:
how confident the AI is in its outputs,
what factors might affect accuracy,
and what the consequences of relying on uncertain information might be.
Hiding uncertainty may make the system feel more confident, but it leads to:
over-reliance on potentially incorrect outputs,
poor decision-making when confidence is low,
and loss of trust when users discover the system was uncertain.
By exposing uncertainty appropriately, I help users:
calibrate their trust in the system,
make better decisions based on confidence levels,
and understand when human judgment is needed.
Communicate Assumptions and Data Gaps
Explain what data the AI used, what assumptions it made, and what information might be missing that affects its outputs.
Usage scenarios:
When the outcome influences operational decisions
When uncertainty is significant
When the output is not exploratory
off
on
Municipality of NowhereDashboard
System that calculates a default risk index for a procedure.Estimated delinquencyMissing recent payment history (last 90 days).Address inferred from registry.
Municipality of NowhereDashboard
System that calculates a default risk index for a procedure.Estimated delinquency
Explain what data sources the AI used to generate outputs.
Present outputs without explaining underlying assumptions or data limitations.
Highlight when important information is missing or unavailable.
Make recommendations appear more certain than the data supports.
Design for Ambiguous or Multiple Outcomes
When the AI is uncertain or multiple interpretations are possible, present all reasonable options rather than forcing a single answer.
Usage scenarios:
Recommendations (movies, music, products)
Weather forecasts with scenarios
Recipe suggestions based on ingredients
Traffic estimation with alternative routes
off
on
Tips for the evening
Starlight DriftSci-Fi, Drama2h 18m2024
For you Matches your interest in space and emotional dramaSimilar to titles you've watched recently
The Last GlacierDocumentary, Nature1h 35m2023
For you Strong match for your documentary and nature viewingHigh rating from critics and viewers
Two Tickets to TomorrowComedy, Romance1h 48m2024
For you Light option for a weeknightAligns with your comedy and romance picks
Midnight in the QuarterThriller, Noir1h 52m2023
You might like Fits your noir and thriller historyTone aligns with your evening viewing preferences
The House on Blackbriar LaneHorror, Mystery1h 58m2024
Not for you Possible fit if you're in the mood for suspenseLess certain given your usual genre mix
Tips for the evening
Starlight DriftSci-Fi, Drama2h 18m2024
The Last GlacierDocumentary, Nature1h 35m2023
Two Tickets to TomorrowComedy, Romance1h 48m2024
Midnight in the QuarterThriller, Noir1h 52m2023
The House on Blackbriar LaneHorror, Mystery1h 58m2024
Present multiple reasonable interpretations when the AI is uncertain.
Force a single answer when multiple outcomes are equally plausible.
Show confidence levels for each possible outcome or interpretation.
Hide ambiguity by presenting only the most likely outcome.
Encourage Verification and Human Judgment
When uncertainty is high, explicitly prompt users to verify outputs and use their judgment rather than blindly accepting AI recommendations.
Usage scenarios:
Hiring or firing
Granting credit
Access to public services
Diagnosis or healthcare priorities
Sanctions or controls
Here, human verification cannot be optional; it is a governance measure.
Extensive experience managing complex projects in technology companies Agile/Scrum certifications aligned with the internal methodology Possible penalization of career breaks if they are not clearly explained The model may fail to capture the complexity of the contexts in which projects were executed
CV list screening
The AI suggests which CVs to shortlist, but always surfaces confidence, reasons, and risks
so a human can double-check before deciding.
AllNeeds review
Marco Rossi Full-stack Developer · Senior · Rome, Italy
Match score 92 / 100
AI 94% confidence
Direct experience with a technology stack very similar to the job description Multiple projects with end-to-end responsibility across frontend and backend The model may overlook soft skills that are not explicitly described (mentorship, team leadership) Possible bias toward candidates with a traditional technical background
Chiara De Angelis UX Researcher · Senior · Milan, Italy
Match score 89 / 100
AI 93% confidence
Strong alignment between research projects and the responsibilities required by the role Experience coordinating complex studies in digital product contexts Risk of excluding less academic profiles that are equally competent Possible over-emphasis on formal education compared to practical skills
Strong alignment between design systems experience and the job description requirements Portfolio includes complete case studies on digital product redesigns Possible over-valuation due to affinity with the 'design system' keyword
Extensive experience managing complex projects in technology companies Agile/Scrum certifications aligned with the internal methodology Possible penalization of career breaks if they are not clearly explained The model may fail to capture the complexity of the contexts in which projects were executed
Review
Ahmed Ali Backend Engineer · Mid · Lyon, France (willing to relocate)
Match score 79 / 100
AI 81% confidence
Solid experience with microservices architectures, aligned with the role International experience in distributed teams, valuable for the company context The model may penalize geographic distance despite the candidate being open to relocation Possible language bias if the CV is not in the same language as the job description
Review
Luca Marino Data Scientist · Junior · Bologna, Italy
Match score 74 / 100
AI 78% confidence
Key technical skills are present but with limited experience in production environments University projects and thesis are very close to the job description domain Risk of favoring CVs with technical keywords over practical experience that is not clearly described Possible bias toward more junior profiles with recent education
Review
Sara Conti HR Generalist · Mid · Turin, Italy
Match score 68 / 100
AI 72% confidence
Experience partially aligned but previous role is more generalist than the job description People analytics skills are consistent with secondary requirements The model may penalize non-linear career paths or role changes Risk of underestimating qualitative experience that is only described narratively
Review
Elena Ricci Customer Support Specialist · Mid · Remote, Italy
Match score 71 / 100
AI 69% confidence
Strong experience in B2B SaaS environments similar to the company context Excellent match between tools used (Zendesk) and the stack described in the job The model may penalize the absence of a degree even if it is not an essential requirement Risk of undervaluing transversal skills such as conflict management
Review
Diego Ferri Support Engineer · Mid · Remote, Spain
Match score 61 / 100
AI 67% confidence
Strong experience with second-level technical support for complex SaaS products Ability to work across multiple time zones, useful for global coverage The model may penalize non-university educational backgrounds Risk of favoring CVs with more 'standard' layout and formatting over substantive content
Review
Paolo Gentili Marketing Specialist · Junior · Naples, Italy
Match score 55 / 100
AI 60% confidence
Foundational skills are present but experience is limited compared to role requirements Good alignment with hands-on tasks, gaps in strategy and analytics The model may automatically exclude junior profiles despite clear potential Risk of reinforcing bias against candidates with fewer years of experience
Prompt users to verify outputs when low or moderate confidence directly impacts people.
Present uncertain outputs as if they're definitive and don't need verification.
Provide easy ways to request human review or additional verification.
Make it difficult for users to question or override AI outputs.
Make Uncertainty Visible
Show confidence levels, probability scores, or uncertainty indicators so users understand how certain the AI is about its outputs.
Usage scenarios:
When the output is probabilistic
When the error has significant consequences
When the model works on noisy data
When the system is perceived as reliable
Q3-Q4 roadmap focuses on API stability and accessibility. We will ship the new design system in September and deprecate legacy components by year-end.
High confidence
This document appears to be a strategic plan based on language patterns and structure.
View document
Compliance review scheduled for next quarter. Stakeholder feedback will be collected before finalizing the decision framework.
Medium confidence
This document might be a policy or guidelines draft. Structure suggests mixed content—please review.
View document
Meeting notes and action items… [text partially illegible]. Follow up with legal on the revised terms.
Low confidence
Document type unclear, handwritten or scanned content may affect accuracy.
View document
Display confidence scores or probability indicators for AI outputs.
Present uncertain outputs with the same visual weight as high-confidence ones.
Use visual indicators (colors, badges, progress bars) to communicate confidence levels.
Hide uncertainty behind technical jargon or bury it in fine print.
Why this principle matters
Uncertainty is a fundamental characteristic of AI systems. Pretending it doesn't exist creates false confidence and poor decision-making.
When users understand uncertainty:
they can weigh AI recommendations appropriately,
they know when to seek additional information or human input,
and they can make informed choices about risk tolerance.
Without transparency about uncertainty, users may:
blindly trust outputs that are actually uncertain,
make critical decisions based on low-confidence predictions,
or lose trust when they discover the system was uncertain about something important.
Related references and bibliographypotentially outdated
Articles & Posts
Jakob Nielsen — Embrace AI’s Uncertainty in UX
AI’s probabilistic nature changes all areas of user experience, impacting users, UX researchers, and designers. This article presents strategies for mitigating the downsides of AI uncertainty while leveraging its potential for creativity. https://jakobnielsenphd.substack.com/p/ai-uncertainty-ux
Microsoft — Guideline 10: Scope services when in doubt
Q. Vera Liao, Jennifer Wortman Vaughan — AI Transparency in the Age of LLMs: A Human-Centered Research Roadmap
The rise of powerful large language models (LLMs) brings about tremendous opportunities for innovation but also looming risks for individuals and society at large. https://hdsr.mitpress.mit.edu/pub/aelql9qy/release/2