Recently, I came across an intriguing application named Askmore. This AI-driven platform is reexamining how user interviews work, turning a manual process into an automated exercise.
You put your required information in; Askmore crafts questions and probes until they have the right insights which they package into a neat set of notes for you.
𝐁𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐟𝐢𝐭𝐬:
A͟u͟t͟o͟m͟a͟t͟e͟d͟ ͟E͟f͟f͟i͟c͟i͟e͟n͟c͟y͟: Askmore allows outreach without the logistical hassles and time commitments of manual interviews.
O͟b͟j͟e͟c͟t͟i͟v͟i͟t͟y͟:͟ Human bias is no longer a concern. Every respondent gets a uniform experience, and the AI ensures unbiased question phrasing.
I͟n͟-͟D͟e͟p͟t͟h͟ ͟E͟x͟p͟l͟o͟r͟a͟t͟i͟o͟n͟:͟ With its capability to ask probing follow-ups, Askmore promises a richer understanding of user perspectives (especially compared to a survey), mimicking an interview’s depth.
𝐂𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐫:
L͟a͟c͟k͟ ͟o͟f͟ ͟P͟e͟r͟s͟o͟n͟a͟l͟ ͟T͟o͟u͟c͟h͟:͟ Human interactions come with trust and connection. Can an AI replicate the warmth and relationship of a human interviewer?
E͟m͟o͟t͟i͟o͟n͟a͟l͟ ͟C͟u͟e͟s͟:͟ Human conversations are layered with subtleties. Can the AI consistently interpret these, avoiding potential misunderstandings? I misinterpret text communication, so AI “should” be worse at this
U͟s͟e͟r͟ ͟A͟d͟a͟p͟t͟a͟b͟i͟l͟i͟t͟y͟: AI interactions at the moment seem weird. Some people might distrust or even fear them, and that will give you poor data.
The application’s success is all about its user experience. It should feel approachable, reassuring, and, above all, trustworthy. If Askmore can guarantee users that their contributions are meaningful, or if there’s a substantial incentive to undertake the survey, we might find more users willing to get involved.
Nevertheless I think its a leap towards modernizing qualitative data collection and I’m keen to try it out
Brendan McNulty 