Standards
Artificial Intelligence & Human Judgment
Machine-scale analysis with human-scale judgment. Technology expands what we can examine; people remain responsible for what we publish.
Last revised
Live Index uses artificial intelligence.
We also distrust it.
Both statements matter.
Why we use it
Modern AI systems are extraordinarily useful for working with large bodies of information. They can help identify patterns, structure research, interrogate datasets, compare documents, develop analytical approaches and accelerate work that would otherwise consume enormous amounts of human time.
We believe refusing to use these capabilities would make our research slower without necessarily making it better.
Why we distrust it
Artificial intelligence can misunderstand context, reproduce errors, flatten ambiguity, confuse correlation with explanation and occasionally state things with considerably more confidence than the evidence deserves.
For that reason, Live Index treats AI as an analytical instrument, not an authority.
Where it assists
AI may assist our researchers with:
- Organizing information
- Exploratory analysis
- Data classification
- Pattern identification
- Document comparison
- Research assistance
- Visualization development
- Computational tasks
- Editorial structuring
What it does not replace
It does not eliminate human responsibility.
Material factual claims should be traceable to underlying evidence. Significant conclusions should receive human review. Data produced or transformed through automated processes should be tested for reasonableness and accuracy appropriate to its use.
Where AI materially affects a methodology or published result, Live Index should explain its role when that context would help readers evaluate the work.
The objective
The objective is neither human-only research nor automated publishing. It is a synthesis: machine-scale analysis with human-scale judgment.
Technology expands what we can examine. People remain responsible for what we publish.