Human oversight
An obligation, set by the AI Act, to maintain effective human control over a high-risk AI system in order to prevent or correct its failures.
Tempe, Arizona, March 2018: an Uber Volvo XC90 in self-driving testing killed Elaine Herzberg as she crossed at night pushing her bicycle. According to Hulu's records obtained by Tempe police, the safety operator was streaming The Voice on her phone minutes before the impact. Article 14 of the AI Act requires that a high-risk AI system can be overseen by natural persons while it is in use. The operator must be able to understand the system's outputs, spot anomalies, override a decision or stop the system when needed. The rule targets automation bias, the tendency to over-rely on a machine's recommendation, and works alongside other safeguards such as the human in the loop. A token presence is not enough: oversight takes skills, suitable interfaces and a real ability to act. Oversight that is missing or only for show is a breach, and it can ground a finding of fault or defect under the liability regime.
Textbook case: an underwriting-support tool must let an underwriter review and override an automated refusal. Otherwise the human oversight required by the AI Act exists only on paper.
- Tempe Police Department, investigation report on the March 18, 2018 collision, released June 2018 (reported by Bloomberg, June 22, 2018)
Follow the research
One letter a week. First, the week's underwriting note, when one is published: a dated, argued decision, signed by Paul Bernardski. Then what the observatory published on cyber risk, political risk and insurance. No account, no tracking.
No spam, one-click unsubscribe, no data ever sold.