AI does not stop.
Optimization continues.
Probabilities update.
Scores improve.
This is not a defect.
Computation is designed that way.
That is precisely why we must ask:
Where should the condition to “stop” judgment be written?
When Judgment Breaks, It Is Because It Failed to Stop
If we look back at what we have discussed so far, the same structure keeps appearing.
Optimization runs away.
Objective functions conceal values.
Probabilities replace judgment.
Exceptions are crushed.
Common-sense boundaries are crossed.
All of these are the result of passing the point where we should have stopped.
The problem is not that judgment was made.
The problem is that it continued to be made.
Stop Conditions Do Not Emerge from Computation
Let us make this clear.
“Stop because the probability is high.”
“Stop because the score is sufficient.”
“Stop because improvement has plateaued.”
All of these belong to the logic of computation.
But what we actually want to stop for are reasons outside that logic:
This is becoming dangerous.
Beyond this point, we cannot turn back.
We can no longer explain what we are doing.
These are not computational thresholds.
They are existential boundaries.
To Stop Judgment Is to Take Responsibility
Stopping judgment is not interruption.
It is not failure.
It is drawing a line and saying:
“I will take responsibility up to here.”
No further will be delegated to AI.
No further will be automated.
No further will be reduced to numbers.
Drawing that line requires someone who is willing to bear the consequences.
What Happens If We Let AI Define the Stop Condition?
There is a common misconception:
“We can train AI to learn when to stop.”
But this is fundamentally impossible.
AI has no reason to stop.
It loses nothing by continuing.
It is not punished for proceeding.
Letting AI define stop conditions is equivalent to entrusting the endpoint of a decision to an entity that bears no responsibility for it.
Stop Conditions Must Be Externalized
Here the key word reappears:
Externalization.
We externalize judgment criteria.
We externalize value systems.
We externalize exceptions.
And finally,
We must externalize stop conditions.
Stop Conditions Belong to the Boundary, Not the Code
Stop conditions should not live inside the model.
Not in the weights.
Not in rules.
Not in thresholds.
They must be written at the boundary between humans and systems.
When this state occurs, return to a human.
In this score range, do not auto-decide.
This type of exception always requires review.
Stop conditions are not about control flow.
They are about responsibility flow.
What Does “Designing Return to Human” Mean?
Returning to human does not mean:
Sending something back to the UI.
Forcing someone to click an approval button.
It means explicitly restoring the human as the decision-making subject.
From this point onward, you decide.
This output is only a hypothesis.
If you proceed, articulate your reasoning.
Without this structure, humans degrade into mere approvers.
A System Without Stop Conditions Is Dangerous
A system without stop conditions:
Always appears correct.
Always appears to be improving.
Always appears rational.
That is precisely why no one can stop it.
And that is the most dangerous state.
The Better the Design, the More Places It Stops
Healthy systems:
Stop quickly.
Return to humans often.
Allow reconsideration midway.
This may look inefficient.
But it is simply honesty toward the complexity of the world.
Who Should Write the Stop Condition?
So who writes the stop condition?
Not the model developer.
Not the data scientist.
Not the AI itself.
Only the human who is willing to bear the consequences of the decision.
Conclusion — The Core of This Series
Everything discussed so far reduces to one idea:
AI can compute judgment.
But it cannot bear judgment.
That is why design is necessary.
And at the heart of that design is this:
Write in advance where to stop and return to human.
Intelligence in the age of AI is not about building smarter models.
It is about embedding the courage to stop into the architecture itself.
コメント