AI Agents Push Humans Out of the Loop

AI agents pose significant risks as they are granted increasing autonomy. A commonly proposed solution is human oversight and keeping a ''human in the loop'', but this is not a simple solution: Not only do current approaches to AI agent design impede effective human oversight, but the cognitive capacities required for it are also themselves degraded by extended use of AI systems. This position paper argues that current approaches to the development and deployment of AI agent systems do not support effective human oversight -- they contribute to its degradation. To address this, a top priority in the advancement of AI agents should be supporting the situated goals and cognitive requirements of effective human oversight, treating the human needs of overseers at the same level of importance as AI agent capability. To put this idea into practice, we connect work on automation and human-computer interaction to AI agent processes, outlining design-level affordances and organizational protocols that (1) support overseers in exercising critical judgement and (2) counteract the skill atrophy that arises from extended use of automation. We urge developers and deployers to adopt these or similar approaches. Without explicit support for the cognitive demands of effective human-agent interaction, AI agent systems will continue to passively incentivize the degradation of the very human skills they rely on.

AI Evaluation Should Work With Humans

This position paper argues that the dominant paradigm of AI evaluation (which focuses on superhuman autonomous performance and so implicitly targets the goal of replacing humans) is guiding AI development in the wrong direction. Instead, the AI community should pivot to evaluating the performance of human--AI teams. We argue that this collaborative shift will foster AI systems that act as true complements to human capabilities and therefore lead to far better societal outcomes than will the current process.

Position: Explainability Research Must Prioritize Foundations over Ad-hoc Methods

Despite the proliferation of Explainable AI (XAI) techniques -- from feature attributions to sparse autoencoders -- explanations rarely influence real-world workflows. In practice, they are often generated and discarded without guiding meaningful action. This gap reflects foundational shortcomings: research has not yet established methodologies for integrating explanations into end-to-end, human-in-the-loop systems. This position paper argues that the machine learning community must pivot from ad-hoc XAI methods toward addressing foundational & structural challenges, including unclear problem formulations, underspecified evaluation objectives, and the absence of pipelines for explanation-driven feedback. We support this claim through an analysis of recent ICML, NeurIPS, and ICLR papers and a survey of XAI practitioners, revealing recurring issues that limit cumulative progress. We conclude by outlining a practical checklist designed to shift XAI toward a more human-centered, action-oriented paradigm. By emphasizing foundational clarity over the development of ad-hoc methods, we hope to provide a roadmap for integrating explanations into actionable, feedback-driven AI systems.

Position: AI Must Become Planet-Centered, Not Just Human-Centered

This position paper argues that contemporary AI paradigms are insufficient for supporting complex global goals and introduces Planet-Centered AI (PCAI) as a design philosophy and research agenda that reorients AI toward planetary-scale socio-ecological systems and their long-term trajectories. A planet-centered approach is grounded in systems thinking, treating Earth as an interconnected whole of which humans are part. We diagnose recurring limitations across AI frameworks, many of which remain human-centered, and show why these become especially consequential under current planetary conditions characterized by systemic risk, non-stationarity, and deep uncertainty. We then articulate how PCAI reshapes the AI lifecycle, from problem formulation and model design to evaluation and deployment, by emphasizing alignment with global agendas, developing system-aware AI foundations, trajectory-oriented evaluation, and monitorability. Finally, we advance a falsifiable claim: AI systems optimized without explicit consideration of systemic consequences are more likely to exacerbate systemic instability than to mitigate it.