2
3 Comments

I added a setting that makes my AI product worse at its one job — on purpose

SignalAI's entire pitch is one sentence: it reads your inbox and texts you when something's genuinely urgent. That's the whole product.

I just shipped a setting that lets you tell it to stop doing that, for specific senders — completely. Not "don't text me," which already existed. Fully skip: the email is never even read by the AI, never classified, never stored. It just... doesn't happen.

Which means if something urgent ever came from that sender, you'd never know. I built a way to make my own product actively worse at the one thing it exists to do.

Here's why I think it's right anyway: some senders are your therapist, a lawyer, a specific relationship you don't want an AI anywhere near, period — not because the classification would be wrong, but because you don't want it to happen at all. No amount of "we don't train on your data" fixes that if the actual ask is "don't look."

Genuinely curious how others think about this — where's the line between a feature that's more private and one that's just a hole in your own product's usefulness?

posted toAvatar for product SignalAI
SignalAI
  1. 1
    The “don’t look” distinction feels important here. Have users who enable sender exclusions become more comfortable trusting SignalAI with the rest of their inbox?
    1. 1
      It is a good question but it is too early to tell.
      1. 1
        Makes sense. What would be the first signal you’d look for to know the exclusions are actually increasing trust?