What would make you trust an AI weather forecast for outdoor plans?

If I am deciding whether to move a birthday lunch indoors, I want to know how the forecast has handled rain nearby—not just how it ranks worldwide. The Met Office's account of a 2026 study reports a survey of over 6,000 UK adults. Around 80% said they would be confident making weather-related decisions with physics-based forecasts, compared with around 40% for potential AI forecasts. Those are answers about confidence, not measured forecast accuracy. The survey cannot tell us that AI gets the weather wrong twice as often. The Met Office also says AI-based models are not yet routinely part of its forecasts, so respondents had limited direct experience of the proposed technology. ‘I don't know yet’ seems a reasonable position. I would not treat it as a problem to fix with more enthusiastic messaging. For ordinary outdoor plans, I would find a local comparison useful: forecasts issued at the same time, for the same place and period, beside what actually happened over a stated run of dates. Include wet days missed and dry days that prompted unnecessary changes. Keep tomorrow's results separate from forecasts made a week ahead. That is evidence I would want, not a test I have run. Cancelling a picnic unnecessarily and missing dangerous weather have very different costs; this comparison would not replace official warnings. For everyday plans, what would help more: knowing how the model works, or seeing its recent record where you live?