Human in the loop
A set-up in which a named person checks an AI result before it reaches a client, a decision or a public output. The check has to name who reviews, at what stage and against what standard.
What it means in practice
The governance article says oversight has to name who checks, at what stage and against what standard, and that basic literacy matters here: knowing a model can produce a confident hallucination in the same tone as a correct answer is what lets a reviewer catch a wrong result. The task and decision article says AI reaches about 75 to 80% accuracy on candidate shortlisting against 85 to 90% for experienced humans, close enough to support the call and not replace it.
How we use it
The audit page says oversight, logging, escalation and the point at which a person takes over are designed into the build rather than added once something has gone wrong. See workflow design and the difference between automating a task and automating a decision.
FAQ
Questions about Human in the loop
What does human in the loop mean?
It means a named person reviews an AI result before it goes further. The governance article says the review has to name who checks, at what stage and against what standard.
Which decisions should always keep a person?
The task and decision article says hiring, dismissal and anything with legal, safety or rights implications sit permanently at Never delegate, whatever the technology can do.
What it means for a business
A rule that says a person should check the output is a hope, not a control. For the use cases that carry the most exposure, the checkpoint has to be actually staffed.
Ready to put this to work?
Tell us where your team is with AI and we will tell you honestly what would make the biggest difference.