Contemporary discourse on AI safety remains predicated on an unexamined epistemological axiom: that systemic risks can be mitigated through the enhancementof human understanding of algorithmic processes. This paper argues that thispremise is not merely ffawed but structurally incoherent. Drawing on the internal limits of bounded rationality (Simon), dispersed knowledge (Hayek), andirreducible opacity (Burrell), we demonstrate that as frontier model complexity scales, human “real-time oversight” does not merely lag behind; it undergoesa phase transition into post-hoc rationalization. In this regime, the “Humanin-the-Loop” mechanism ceases to function as a technical safety constraint andcollapses into a legitimation ritual—a social technology that obscures algorithmicuncertainty behind the appearance of human agencyWe do not propose incremental improvements to interpretability or oversight. Wecontend that the object of desire in the old paradigm—comprehensible control—does not exist within the current architectural trajectory of AI. Consequently, weabandon the project of making machines “understandable” and instead delineatethree non-negotiable boundary conditions for governing the incomprehensible: (1)the Reserved Authority Principle, which institutionalizes a human veto nodeindependent of the supervisor’s cognitive access to the system’s internal states;(2) the Procedural Transparency Principle, which mandates public contestability of the normative architecture (objective functions, binding constraints,and inferential pathways) rather than transparency of every computational step;and (3) the Principle of Irreducible Opacity, which formally acknowledgesthe structural limits of human comprehension and relocates safety responsibilityfrom understanding to structural constraint.These conditions do not constitute an improvement to AI safety. They constitute the minimum institutional terrain upon which the concept of safety retainsmeaning after the omniscient ideal has collapsed.
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
栎洋 丁
Hangzhou Dianzi University
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
栎洋 丁 (Thu,) studied this question.
www.synapsesocial.com/papers/6a0415aa79e20c90b4445742 — DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20116940