Working paper presents a process architecture linking human goals and AI capabilities, suggesting implications for collaboration.
Large language models provide broad informational and generative potential, but they do not independently supply direction, responsibility, continuity of process, validation of results, or contact with real-world consequences. Human participants provide goals, experience, meaning, responsibility, and action in reality, while remaining limited by time, attention, and processing capacity. This working paper presents AWM as a process-regulation method that links the human and the LLM while preserving direction, trace, epistemic status, feedback from reality, and the possibility of local correction. The paper develops a homeostatic architecture expressed as Human → (AWM + LLM) → Human → R_d → Human. It treats error as feedback, distinguishes verified, indicated, assumed, and unknown claims, maintains parallel traces, protects human freedom and functional hierarchy, and proposes Enough+ as an operational threshold. The resulting model frames human-AI collaboration as an adaptive, verifiable, and robust process rather than a sequence of isolated answers.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Alen Širola (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: