ibl.ai Agentic AI Blog

Insights on building and deploying agentic AI systems. Our blog covers AI agent architectures, LLM infrastructure, MCP servers, enterprise deployment strategies, and real-world implementation guides. Whether you are a developer building AI agents, a CTO evaluating agentic platforms, or a technical leader driving AI adoption, you will find practical guidance here.

Topics We Cover

Featured Research and Reports

We analyze key research from leading institutions and labs including Google DeepMind, Anthropic, OpenAI, Meta AI, McKinsey, and the World Economic Forum. Our content includes detailed analysis of reports on AI agents, foundation models, and enterprise AI strategy.

For Technical Leaders

CTOs, engineering leads, and AI architects turn to our blog for guidance on agent orchestration, model evaluation, infrastructure planning, and building production-ready AI systems. We provide frameworks for responsible AI deployment that balance capability with safety and reliability.

Back to Blog

University of California Irvine: What Large Language Models Know and What People Think They Know

Jeremy WeaverFebruary 17, 2025
Premium

The study reveals that users tend to overestimate large language models' accuracy due to discrepancies between the models' internal confidence and the users' interpretation, with longer explanations and specific uncertainty language boosting user confidence regardless of actual accuracy. Tailoring LLM responses to better reflect internal uncertainty can help bridge this calibration gap, improving trustworthiness in AI-assisted decisions.

University of California Irvine: What Large Language Models Know and What People Think They Know



Summary of Read Full Report

This study investigates how well large language models (LLMs) communicate their uncertainty to users and how human perception aligns with the LLMs' actual confidence. The research identifies a "calibration gap" where users overestimate LLM accuracy, especially with default explanations.

Longer explanations increase user confidence without improving accuracy, indicating shallow processing. By tailoring explanations to reflect the LLM's internal confidence, the study demonstrates a reduction in both the calibration and discrimination gaps, leading to improved user perception of LLM reliability.

The study underscores the importance of transparent uncertainty communication for trustworthy AI-assisted decision-making, advocating for explanations aligned with model confidence.

The study examines how well large language models (LLMs) communicate uncertainty and how humans perceive the accuracy of LLM responses. It identifies gaps between LLM confidence and human confidence, and explores methods to improve user perception of LLM accuracy.

Here are 5 key takeaways:

  • Calibration and Discrimination Gaps: There's a notable difference between an LLM's internal confidence in its answers and how confident humans are in those same answers. Humans often overestimate the accuracy of LLM responses, and are not good at distinguishing between correct and incorrect answers based on default explanations.
  • Explanation Length Matters: Longer explanations from LLMs tend to increase user confidence, even if the added length doesn't actually improve the accuracy or informativeness of the answer.
  • Uncertainty Language Influences Perception: Human confidence is strongly influenced by the type of uncertainty language used in LLM explanations. Low-confidence statements lead to lower human confidence, while high-confidence statements lead to higher human confidence.
  • Tailoring Explanations Reduces Gaps: By adjusting LLM explanations to better reflect the model's internal confidence, the calibration and discrimination gaps can be narrowed. This improves user perception of LLM accuracy.
  • Limited User Expertise: Participants in the study generally lacked the expertise to accurately assess LLM responses independently. Even when users altered the LLM's answer, their accuracy was lower than the LLM's.

Why does owning the AI stack matter?

ibl.ai is the agentic AI platform where you own all the code and the data. You self-host the entire stack inside your own perimeter, run it model-agnostic across any LLM and switch anytime, and pay by usage with no per-seat pricing β€” so you can deploy anywhere: your cloud, on-premise, GovCloud, or fully air-gapped.

  • You own all the code and the data

    Full source code under a perpetual license, running on your infrastructure. Not API access to someone else's platform β€” the stack itself is yours.

  • Model-agnostic

    Run any LLM β€” Claude, GPT, Gemini, Llama, Command, or your own fine-tune β€” and switch providers without rewriting the platform.

  • No per-seat pricing

    Usage-based billing against a budget cap you set. Cost tracks what your organization actually uses, not how many people you employ.

  • Deploy anywhere

    Your cloud, your VPC, on-premise, GovCloud, or a fully air-gapped network with no outbound connectivity.

1.6M+ users across 400+ organizations run the platform this way, including NVIDIA, MIT, and Syracuse University.

ibl.ai is family-owned and operated from New York, NY β€” a U.S.-headquartered, domestically-owned long-term partner, not a vendor that sells licenses and moves on.

See the ibl.ai AI Operating System in Action

Discover how leading universities and organizations are transforming education with the ibl.ai AI Operating System. Explore real-world implementations from Harvard, MIT, Stanford, and users from 400+ institutions worldwide.

View Case Studies
Work with our team

Pilots, deployment, and full ownership

Most enterprise engagements are one-time, not subscriptions. You integrate ibl.ai with your own data, deploy it on your own infrastructure, and the engineering hours scale with the work β€” so the price tracks the scope, not your headcount.

Start here

Pilot

from $15K

fixed scope Β· fixed timeline

A time-boxed proof of value on your real data β€” not a slide deck.

Best for: Teams that want to see ibl.ai working before committing.

  • Deployed on your infrastructure or our cloud
  • 1–2 production agents wired to a slice of your data
  • One integration (LMS / SIS / SSO / data source)
  • Weekly working sessions with our engineers
  • Pilot fee credits toward a full engagement
Scope a pilot
Most common

Integration & Deployment

$25K – $80K

one-time Β· not a subscription

Full deployment integrated with your data and systems. Engineering hours scale with scope.

Best for: Organizations rolling ibl.ai out across a department, campus, or business unit.

  • Platform deployed in your VPC, on-prem, or air-gapped
  • Integrated with your data + identity (SSO / SAML)
  • Multiple custom agents built to your workflows
  • Engineering hours proportional to scope
  • You own the data Β· run any LLM you choose
Plan a deployment
Full ownership

Codebase Transfer + Custom AI Engineering

Six figures

perpetual license Β· you own the stack

We transfer the full source code. You own and self-host the entire platform β€” outright.

Best for: Government, defense, and enterprises that require perpetual ownership and sovereignty.

  • Complete source-code transfer + perpetual license
  • Dedicated AI engineering team on your roadmap
  • Custom agents, models, and integrations to spec
  • Air-gapped capable Β· zero vendor lock-in
  • Family-owned, New York–based long-term partner
Talk about ownership
You own the code and data Run any LLM β€” Claude, GPT, Gemini, Llama Family-owned & operated from New York, NY