Human-in-the-Loop Is Not a Safety Guarantee
“Human-in-the-loop” sounds reassuring: humans can apply judgement where machines cannot. In practice, human presence alone does not guarantee meaningful oversight. Often, it simply relocates risk.
The Comfort of Presence
A human who lacks understanding, authority, or the ability to intervene is not a safeguard but a procedural ornament.
Automation Bias
Under time pressure and opacity, humans become approvers rather than decision-makers. The cost of disagreement is high; the cost of compliance seems low — until failure occurs.
Responsibility Without Authority
Humans are held accountable for outcomes but lack the ability to interrogate assumptions, override recommendations without penalty, or slow systems down. This is liability transfer, not safety.
Humans as Attack Surfaces
Attackers exploit alert fatigue and deference to “intelligent” tools. Poor human-in-the-loop designs can increase risk by eroding scepticism.
Designing Meaningful Involvement
Real oversight requires interfaces that support reasoning, organisations that reward challenge, and explicit acknowledgement of cognitive limits.
The question is not whether a human is in the loop, but whether the loop makes sense.