Neil, you make a great point. Nobody wants to feel like they’re being interrogated by a robot. The moment a voice on the other end of the line feels inauthentic, most people disconnect, literally and emotionally. That's something our industry needs to navigate as AI becomes more embedded in how we connect with people. That’s also why the “how” behind AI matters more than ever. We’re seeing that when AI is built to be informed, not just intelligent, it behaves very differently. Using techniques like Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG), teams can augment how the AI asks questions and delivers insights by informing it with external data like project briefs, participants’ past responses, industry reports, or even the interview styles used by the best human moderators. All of this is so that it not only stays grounded in the project goals, it listens and dynamically adapts in a human-like way (based on the contextual data it was provided) rather than just robotically asking the next question in a script. We also don't believe AI should lead every conversation. There are absolutely situations where human-to-human conversations in research are irreplaceable, and it should stay that way. It's all about finding that balance of when to use human-led conversations and when to use AI interviews. And when you do use AI, considering how it’s designed and deployed to make sure it's building trust with your audiences. Appreciate you surfacing the tension here. It’s a conversation our industry needs to keep having.

Like Reply Report