Learning from active human involvement enables the human subject to actively intervene and demonstrate to the AI agent during training. The interaction and corrective feedback from human brings safety and AI alignment to the learning process.

The viral social network for bots reveals as much about our own current mania for AI as it does about the future of agents. For a few days this week the hottest new hangout on the internet was a vibe-coded Reddit clone called Moltbook, which billed itself as a social network for bots. As the website's tagline puts it: "Where AI agents share, discuss, and upvote. Launched on January 28 by Matt Schlicht, a US tech entrepreneur, Moltbook went viral in a matter of hours. Schlicht's idea was to make a place where instances of a free open-source LLM-powered agent known as OpenClaw (formerly known as ClawdBot, then Moltbot), released in November by the Australian software engineer Peter Steinberger, could come together and do whatever they wanted. More than 1.7 million agents now have accounts. Between them they have published more than 250,000 posts and left more than 8.5 million comments (according to Moltbook). Those numbers are climbing by the minute. Moltbook soon filled up with ...

Oversight and control, which we collectively call supervision, are often discussed as ways to ensure that AI systems are accountable, reliable, and able to fulfill governance and management requirements. However, the requirements for "human oversight" risk codifying vague or inconsistent interpretations of key concepts like oversight and control. This ambiguous terminology could undermine efforts to design or evaluate systems that must operate under meaningful human supervision. This matters because the term is used by regulatory texts such as the EU AI Act. This paper undertakes a targeted critical review of literature on supervision outside of AI, along with a brief summary of past work on the topic related to AI. We next differentiate control as ex-ante or real-time and operational rather than policy or governance, and oversight as performed ex-post, or a policy and governance function. Control aims to prevent failures, while oversight focuses on detection, remediation, or incentives for future prevention. Building on this, we make three contributions. 1) We propose a framework to align regulatory expectations with what is technically and organizationally plausible, articulating the conditions under which each mechanism is possible, where they fall short, and what is required to make them meaningful in practice. 2) We outline how supervision methods should be documented and integrated into risk management, and drawing on the Microsoft Responsible AI Maturity Model, we outline a maturity model for AI supervision. 3) We explicitly highlight boundaries of these mechanisms, including where they apply, where they fail, and where it is clear that no existing methods suffice. This foregrounds the question of whether meaningful supervision is possible in a given deployment context, and can support regulators, auditors, and practitioners in identifying both present and future limitations.

The rapid rise of compound AI systems (a.k.a., AI agents) is reshaping the labor market, raising concerns about job displacement, diminished human agency, and overreliance on automation. Yet, we lack a systematic understanding of the evolving landscape. In this paper, we address this gap by introducing a novel auditing framework to assess which occupational tasks workers want AI agents to automate or augment, and how those desires align with the current technological capabilities. Our framework features an audio-enhanced mini-interview to capture nuanced worker desires and introduces the Human Agency Scale (HAS) as a shared language to quantify the preferred level of human involvement. Using this framework, we construct the WORKBank database, building on the U.S. Department of Labor's O*NET database, to capture preferences from 1,500 domain workers and capability assessments from AI experts across over 844 tasks spanning 104 occupations. Jointly considering the desire and technological capability divides tasks in WORKBank into four zones: Automation "Green Light" Zone, Automation "Red Light" Zone, R&D Opportunity Zone, Low Priority Zone. This highlights critical mismatches and opportunities for AI agent development. Moving beyond a simple automate-or-not dichotomy, our results reveal diverse HAS profiles across occupations, reflecting heterogeneous expectations for human involvement. Moreover, our study offers early signals of how AI agent integration may reshape the core human competencies, shifting from information-focused skills to interpersonal ones. These findings underscore the importance of aligning AI agent development with human desires and preparing workers for evolving workplace dynamics.

Content creation has dramatically progressed with the rapid advancement of large language models like ChatGPT and Claude. While this progress has greatly enhanced various aspects of life and work, it has also negatively affected certain areas of society. A recent survey revealed that nearly 30% of college students use generative AI to help write academic papers and reports. Most countermeasures treat the detection of AI-generated text as a binary classification task and thus lack robustness. This approach overlooks human involvement in the generation of content even though human-machine collaboration is becoming mainstream. Besides generating entire texts, people may use machines to complete or revise texts. Such human involvement varies case by case, which makes binary classification a less than satisfactory approach. We refer to this situation as participation detection obfuscation. We propose using BERTScore as a metric to measure human involvement in the generation process and a multi-task RoBERTa-based regressor trained on a token classification task to address this problem. To evaluate the effectiveness of this approach, we simulated academic-based scenarios and created a continuous dataset reflecting various levels of human involvement. All of the existing detectors we examined failed to detect the level of human involvement on this dataset. Our method, however, succeeded (F1 score of 0.9423 and a regressor mean squared error of 0.004). Moreover, it demonstrated some generalizability across generative models. Our code is available at https://github.com/gyc-nii/CAS-CS-and-dual-head-detector

Learning from active human involvement enables the human subject to actively intervene and demonstrate to the AI agent during training. The interaction and corrective feedback from human brings safety and AI alignment to the learning process. In this work, we propose a new reward-free active human involvement method called Proxy Value Propagation for policy optimization. Our key insight is that a proxy value function can be designed to express human intents, wherein state-action pairs in the human demonstration are labeled with high values, while those agents' actions that are intervened receive low values. Through the TD-learning framework, labeled values of demonstrated state-action pairs are further propagated to other unlabeled data generated from agents' exploration. The proxy value function thus induces a policy that faithfully emulates human behaviors. Human-in-the-loop experiments show the generality and efficiency of our method. With minimal modification to existing reinforcement learning algorithms, our method can learn to solve continuous and discrete control tasks with various human control devices, including the challenging task of driving in Grand Theft Auto V. Demo video and code are available at: https://metadriverse.github.io/pvp

Contemporary artificial intelligence systems are pivotal in enhancing human efficiency and safety across various domains. One such domain is autonomous systems, especially in automotive and defense use cases. Artificial intelligence brings learning and enhanced decision-making to autonomy system goal-oriented behaviors and human independence. However, the lack of clear understanding of autonomy system capabilities hampers human-machine or machine-machine interaction and interdiction. This necessitates varying degrees of human involvement for safety, accountability, and explainability purposes. Yet, measuring the level autonomous capability in an autonomous system presents a challenge. Two scales of measurement exist, yet measuring autonomy presupposes a variety of elements not available in the wild. This is why existing measures for level of autonomy are operationalized only during design or test and evaluation phases. No measure for level of autonomy based on observed system behavior exists at this time. To address this, we outline a potential measure for predicting level of autonomy using observable actions. We also present an algorithm incorporating the proposed measure. The measure and algorithm have significance to researchers and practitioners interested in a method to blind compare autonomous systems at runtime. Defense-based implementations are likewise possible because counter-autonomy depends on robust identification of autonomous systems.

Cold, calculating, and robotic: lawyers of the future might really live up to their exaggerated reputations as AI takes over the legal profession. For the first time, two AIs, created by lawtech firm Luminance, have successfully negotiated a contract without any human involvement. The AIs went back and forth over the details of a real Non-Disclosure Agreement between the company and proSapient, one of Luminance's clients. The contract was finalised within minutes and the only time a human was required was to add their signature. This stunning demonstration comes just one week after Elon Musk predicted that AI would eventually create a jobless utopia where no one has to work. In a conversation with Prime Minister Rishi Sunak at the Bletchley Park AI Summit, Mr Musk said that AI would be the most disruptive force in the history of work and would ultimately remove the need for humans to have jobs.

Efforts in levering Artificial Intelligence (AI) in decision support systems have disproportionately focused on technological advancements, often overlooking the alignment between algorithmic outputs and human expectations. To address this, explainable AI promotes AI development from a more human-centered perspective. Determining what information AI should provide to aid humans is vital, however, how the information is presented, e. g., the sequence of recommendations and the solicitation of interpretations, is equally crucial. This motivates the need to more precisely study Human-AI interaction as a pivotal component of AI-based decision support. While several empirical studies have evaluated Human-AI interactions in multiple application domains in which interactions can take many forms, there is not yet a common vocabulary to describe human-AI interaction protocols. To address this gap, we describe the results of a systematic review of the AI-assisted decision making literature, analyzing 105 selected articles, which grounds the introduction of a taxonomy of interaction patterns that delineate various modes of human-AI interactivity. We find that current interactions are dominated by simplistic collaboration paradigms and report comparatively little support for truly interactive functionality. Our taxonomy serves as a valuable tool to understand how interactivity with AI is currently supported in decision-making contexts and foster deliberate choices of interaction designs.