Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper addresses the ambiguity in terminology surrounding human involvement in AI systems (HITL, HOTL, Human Oversight) by proposing a causal taxonomy. It distinguishes HITL (constitutive human contribution) from HOTL (corrective human intervention) based on their causal roles during runtime. The authors further categorize HOTL into synchronous, asynchronous, and anticipatory modes, and introduce a cognitive integration dimension (complementary vs. hybrid intelligence) to create a more nuanced framework.
The crucial difference between "Human-in-the-Loop" and "Human-on-the-Loop" isn't *where* the human is, but *how* their involvement causally shapes the AI's decisions.
As AI systems increasingly permeate high-stakes decision-making, the terminology regarding human involvement - Human-in-the-Loop (HITL), Human-on-the-Loop (HOTL), and Human Oversight - has become vexingly ambiguous. This ambiguity complicates interdisciplinary collaboration between computer science, law, philosophy, psychology, and sociology and can lead to regulatory uncertainty. We propose a clarification grounded in causal structure, focused on human involvement during the runtime of AI systems. The distinction between HITL and HOTL, we argue, is not primarily spatial but causal: HITL is constitutive (a human contribution is necessary for the decision output), while HOTL is corrective (external to the primary causal chain, capable of preventing or modifying outputs). Within HOTL, we distinguish three temporal modes - synchronous, asynchronous, and anticipatory - situated within a nested model of provider and deployer runtime that clarifies their different capacities for intervention. A second, orthogonal dimension captures cognitive integration: whether human and machine operate as complementary or hybrid intelligence, yielding four structurally distinct configurations. Finally, we distinguish these descriptive categories from the normative requirements they serve: statutory"Human Oversight"is a specific normative mode of HOTL that demands not merely a corrective causal position, but genuine preparedness and capacity for effective intervention. Because the same person may occupy both HITL and HOTL roles simultaneously, we argue that this role duality must be treated as a design problem requiring architectural and epistemic mitigation rather than mere acknowledgment.
