Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2407.17481

Human Oversight of Artificial Intelligence and Technical Standardisation

Marion Ho-Dac·Baptiste Martinez
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The adoption of human oversight measures makes it possible to regulate, to varying degrees and in different ways, the decision-making process of Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems, for example by placing a human being in charge of supervising the system and, upstream, by developing the AI system to enable such supervision. Within the global governance of AI, the requirement for human oversight is embodied in several regulatory formats, within a diversity of normative sources. On the one hand, it reinforces the accountability of AI systems' users (for example, by requiring them to carry out certain checks) and, on the other hand, it better protects the individuals affected by the AI-based decision (for example, by allowing them to request a review of the decision). In the European context, the AI Act imposes obligations on providers of high-risk AI systems (and to some extent also on professional users of these systems, known as deployers), including the introduction of human oversight tools throughout the life cycle of AI systems, including by design (and their implementation by deployers). The EU legislator is therefore going much further than in the past in "spelling out" the legal requirement for human oversight. But it does not intend to provide for all implementation details; it calls on standardisation to technically flesh out this requirement (and more broadly all the requirements of section 2 of chapter III) on the basis of article 40 of the AI Act. In this multi-level regulatory context, the question of the place of humans in the AI decision-making process should be given particular attention. Indeed, depending on whether it is the law or the technical standard that sets the contours of human oversight, the "regulatory governance" of AI is not the same: its nature, content and scope are different. This analysis is at the heart of the contribution made (or to be made) by legal experts to the central reflection on the most appropriate regulatory governance -- in terms of both its institutional format and its substance -- to ensure the effectiveness of human oversight and AI trustworthiness.

Explore related subjects

cs.CY

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Marion Ho-Dac, Baptiste Martinez. 2024-07-02. Human Oversight of Artificial Intelligence and Technical Standardisation. https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.17481

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

A Brief AI Literacy Intervention Does Not Significantly Reduce Over-Reliance and Increases Under-Reliance on ChatGPT: A Randomized Study

In this study, we examined whether a brief AI literacy intervention influences high school students' reliance on recommendations from large language models (LLMs). In a randomized experiment, students were assigned to either a control group receiving a brief introduction to LLMs or an intervention group receiving additional information about how LLMs work, their limitations, and effective usage strategies. Participants then solved eight math puzzles with ChatGPT's advice, which was incorrect in half of the trials. Results indicated widespread over-reliance, with incorrect recommendations adopted in 52.1% of the trials. The intervention did not significantly reduce over-reliance. Instead, it led to an increase in under-reliance, as students were more likely to reject correct recommendations. These findings provide preliminary evidence that brief text-based interventions may be ineffective in fostering appropriate reliance. More comprehensive and interactive approaches may be required to meaningfully influence students' real-world reliance on LLMs.

cs.CY↗
arXiv2026

Your Programming Students' Cognition with ChatGPT: Higher Performance, Lower Retention, and Reduced Ownership

Generative AI can improve students' programming performance, but successful task completion may not reflect what they retain. We examined performance, retention, cognitive load, and ownership in a controlled between-subjects experiment with 59 undergraduate computer science students, 55 were retained for analysis. Participants completed three introductory C programming tasks with access to ChatGPT-4.5 or conventional web search without generative AI. We measured task performance, self-reported mental effort and difficulty, pupillary responses, heart rate variability, and ownership, and assessed cued recall immediately and 48 hours later. ChatGPT-assisted students achieved higher coding scores (89% vs. 69%) but lower recall scores immediately (41% vs. 53%) and after 48 hours (39% vs. 52%). There was no significant difference in the loss of recall information over 48 hours between the groups. Self-reported mental effort increased less across tasks in the ChatGPT condition (Holm-adjusted p = .047), and students attributed less of the submitted code to themselves (45% vs. 81%). Confirmatory physiological tests did not detect significant differences in trajectories between conditions; substantial data loss limits their interpretation. These findings reveal a gap between assisted task performance and subsequent recall and sense of ownership in this setting. They motivate the need for assessment practices and AI learning tools that require students to explain, retrieve, and contribute to the work they submit as active participants in their education.

cs.CY↗
arXiv2026

Open Platform Field Experiments: Expanding the Design Space of Experimental Research on Social Media

Despite a growing demand for causal evidence about social media, independent researchers remain severely constrained in their ability to conduct experiments directly on online platforms. To cope, multiple methodological workarounds have emerged - from controlled surveys and simulations to client-side overlays and platform partnerships - each requiring distinct trade-offs between desirable experimental properties. The recent emergence of open social media platforms offers a qualitatively different methodological opportunity. Here we propose a design space of social media experimentation and discuss Open Platform Field Experiments (OPFEs). OPFEs represent a distinct class of experimental approaches that enable independent researchers to directly intervene on functional platform components - such as clients, recommendation systems, and moderation services - within live social media environments. Through a comparative analysis of experimental archetypes, we show that OPFEs occupy a previously unexplored region of the design space. We then bridge theory and practice by characterizing the architectural and governance elements that enable OPFEs, mapping them onto Bluesky and the AT Protocol, and illustrating the end-to-end lifecycle of a complete OPFE design. Overall, this work establishes OPFEs as a practical methodological paradigm for independent, transparent, and ecologically grounded experimentation on open social media.

cs.CY↗