Human-in-the-loop (HITL) has long been presented as a safety mechanism for the AI era.
The human checks at the end.
The human presses the approval button.
Critical decisions include human intervention.
At first glance, it appears that responsibility and judgment remain with the human.
But in practice, HITL rarely functions as intended.
In many cases, it does the opposite.
It becomes a mechanism that erodes responsibility.
What happens the moment “the human at the end” is introduced
The typical structure of Human-in-the-Loop looks like this:
-
The AI generates a judgment
-
Scores, probabilities, and explanations are presented
-
The human selects Yes or No
At this point, the human appears to be making a decision.
But in reality,
the human is merely ratifying
a process whose direction has already been determined.
People cannot take responsibility for decisions they did not author
This is the decisive point.
Responsibility means accepting the outcome.
But it also presupposes authorship of the judgment itself.
In HITL, the human did not:
-
write the evaluation function
-
choose the underlying assumptions
-
define the stopping conditions
Yet they are asked, at the end, only to approve.
What emerges is a separation between
formal responsibility
and
actual agency.
Why “the human at the end” loses judgment
The reason is simple.
The human did not create the decision context.
The human did not design the structure of choices.
The human did not witness the process that eliminated alternatives.
A person cannot fully answer
a question they did not write.
Pressing Yes or No is not judgment.
It is confirmation.
HITL produces responsibility diffusion
In organizations where HITL becomes standard, the same conversation inevitably appears:
Developer: “This was the AI’s recommendation.”
Operator: “The human approved it.”
Management: “The process was followed.”
Responsibility disperses.
No one remains the author of the decision.
This is the fundamental failure of HITL.
The problem is not that humans are absent
Here is the critical inversion.
The problem is not that humans are outside the loop.
The problem is not that humans fail to approve.
The problem is that humans are not present as authors.
What Human-as-Author means
Human-as-Author (HAA) repositions the human
not at the end of the decision,
but at its origin and structural definition.
Specifically, humans take responsibility for defining:
-
what is evaluated
-
what is not evaluated
-
where judgment must stop
-
when control returns to humans
-
how to handle disagreement and conflict
The AI then performs its proper role:
-
computing outcomes
-
exposing uncertainty
-
revealing conflicts
What changes when humans move from approvers to authors
When humans become authors, their behavior fundamentally changes.
They can explain why a metric exists.
They can accept disagreement.
They do not panic in the presence of exceptions.
They can take responsibility for stopping the system.
Because the judgment structure is their own.
AI does not replace judgment — it exposes authorship
What becomes clear is this:
AI does not take judgment away.
AI does not hold responsibility.
What AI actually does is make it impossible to hide
who authored the judgment.
Human-in-the-loop obscures this authorship.
Human-as-Author makes it explicit.
Summary
The core principles are:
-
AI can produce decisions, but cannot assume responsibility
-
Optimization, probability, and explanation do not constitute judgment
-
Exceptions, conflicts, and disagreement have value
-
Stopping conditions must be written by humans
-
Non-agreement is itself an outcome
-
Responsibility resides not at the end, but with the author
Human-in-the-Loop turns humans into approvers.
Human-as-Author restores humans as authors of judgment.
What is being lost in the AI era is not human intelligence.
It is the position from which one can say:
“I wrote this decision.”
Only systems designed to preserve authorship
can produce AI that survives beyond the PoC stage.
コメント