mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Position: Human-Centric AI Requires a Minimum Viable Level of Human Understanding

arXiv 2602.00854 ↗First posted 31 Jan 2026cs.AIcited by 6

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

AI systems increasingly produce fluent, correct, end-to-end outcomes. Over time, this erodes users' ability to explain, verify, or intervene. We define this divergence as the Capability-Comprehension Gap: a decoupling where assisted performance improves while users' internal models deteriorate. This paper argues that prevailing approaches to transparency, user control, literacy, and governance do not define the foundational understanding humans must retain for oversight under sustained AI delegation. To formalize this, we define the Cognitive Integrity Threshold (CIT) as the minimum comprehension required to preserve oversight, autonomy, and accountable participation under AI assistance. CIT does not require full reasoning reconstruction, nor does it constrain automation. It identifies the threshold beyond which oversight becomes procedural and contestability fails. We operatinalize CIT through three functional dimensions: (i) verification capacity, (ii) comprehension-preserving interaction, and (iii) institutional scaffolds for governance. This motivates a design and governance agenda that aligns human-AI interaction with cognitive sustainability in responsibility-critical settings.

Key facts. Cited by 6 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 24 of its 87 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 31 Jan 2026.

Builds on

24 of 87 references.

References · 24

  1. 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,199
  2. 2023GPT-4 Technical Reportcited by 18,132
  3. 2025Gemini 2.5: Pushing the Frontier with Advanced Reasoning, Multimodality, Long Context, and Next Generation Agentic Capabilitiescited by 3,655
  4. 2023Vision-Language Models for Vision Tasks: A Surveycited by 834
  5. 2024Large Language Model based Multi-Agents: A Survey of Progress and Challengescited by 752
  6. 2024DeepSeek-VL: Towards Real-World Vision-Language Understandingcited by 718
  7. 2020Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence: Reliable, Safe & Trustworthycited by 182
  8. 2025AI Agents vs. Agentic AI: A Conceptual Taxonomy, Applications and Challengescited by 167
  9. 2024RL-VLM-F: Reinforcement Learning from Vision Language Foundation Model Feedbackcited by 147
  10. 2023Factuality Challenges in the Era of Large Language Modelscited by 125
  11. 2025Your Brain on ChatGPT: Accumulation of Cognitive Debt when Using an AI Assistant for Essay Writing Taskcited by 103
  12. 2025Vibe Coding vs. Agentic Coding: Fundamentals and Practical Implications of Agentic AIcited by 39
12 more
  1. 2024Trust in AI: Progress, Challenges, and Future Directionscited by 35
  2. 2023Navigating the Complexity of Generative AI Adoption in Software Engineeringcited by 32
  3. 2024FlowMind: Automatic Workflow Generation with LLMscited by 30
  4. 2024On the Quest for Effectiveness in Human Oversight: Interdisciplinary Perspectivescited by 28
  5. 2025Vibe Coding in Practice: Motivations, Challenges, and a Future Outlook -- a Grey Literature Reviewcited by 28
  6. 2025Code with Me or for Me? How Increasing AI Automation Transforms Developer Workflowscited by 27
  7. 2025OpenGPT-4o-Image: A Comprehensive Dataset for Advanced Image Generation and Editingcited by 27
  8. 2022Human-Centric Artificial Intelligence Architecture for Industry 5.0 Applicationscited by 11
  9. 2023Prediction under interventions: evaluation of counterfactual performance using longitudinal observational datacited by 8
  10. 2025Automation Bias in the AI Act: On the Legal Implications of Attempting to De-Bias Human Oversight of AIcited by 7
  11. 2024Measuring Technical Debt in AI-Based Competition Platformscited by 1
  12. 2025The California Report on Frontier AI Policycited by 1

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 6.

6 papers.