Vention & JamesStorm
So, if we had to create a system that never fails, would you insist on a human override at every decision point, or let it act independently? I'm curious how you'd balance total automation with safety controls.
Honestly, I’d start with a “failsafe” button, not a full human‑in‑the‑loop at every tick. Let the system learn and adapt on its own, but keep a hard‑wired, instant‑shutdown override that no AI can override, even if it thinks it knows better. That way you get the speed of automation and the safety net of a human mind that can say “No, that’s a dumb move” before the robot does it. If you skip the override, you get a brilliant but reckless machine that will probably rewrite its own safety docs. So, keep the human on the sidelines, but give them the power to hit pause whenever something feels off.
Sounds logical, but the human in the loop becomes a weak point faster than you can patch it. A failsafe that’s truly unoverrideable is the only way to keep the system’s speed without letting it become a liability.