Nonuniformity Principle in Human-AI Coworking

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.16530v1
• Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2026 22:10:07 GMT
• Title: Nonuniformity Principle in Human-AI Coworking
• Abstract summary: In generative AI, human judgment and involvement remain essential for ensuring the quality of AI-generated outputs.<n>It is desirable for human experts to provide oversight on AI regularly, often by reviewing intermediate outputs, giving feedback, making corrections, and steering subsequent steps.<n>This creates a tension between the need for human oversight and AI's efficiency in delivering more output with less intervention.
• Score: 7.8976567245659615
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: As generative AI is increasingly applied to automate multi-step and high-stake workflows, human judgment and involvement remain essential for ensuring the quality of AI-generated outputs. In practice, while it is desirable for human experts to provide oversight on AI regularly, often by reviewing intermediate outputs, giving feedback, making corrections, and steering subsequent steps, such oversight is constrained by the time and resources that humans can afford. This creates a tension between the need for human oversight and AI's efficiency in delivering more output with less intervention. An important but underexplored question, then, is how to optimally engage humans in human-AI coworking. This work was originally motivated by our empirical observation that in long AI workflows, human oversight often improves user satisfaction while reducing unnecessary rework and token consumption. From there, we formulate the problem of where to place oversight stages in human-AI coworking. Under reasonable assumptions, we then develop the nonuniformity principle, which states that the optimal schedule places oversight stages with non-decreasing gaps along the workflow. We empirically validate this principle in two common AI agent workflows: writing literature reviews and constructing websites.

Related papers

• When Does AI Augment Work? A Workflow-Level Framework for Human-Agent Collaboration [78.16115745870405]
  We aim to characterise the value of artificial intelligence in the workplace.<n>Current studies largely measure this value in terms of the current automation capabilities and public adoption of AI.<n>To account for this, we must expand the scope of our analysis beyond atomised tasks of today.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-11T06:29:34Z)
• The Scaling Paradox in Human-AI Collaboration [2.1771821757134915]
  We develop an analytical model to examine when the empirical scaling benefits of AI translate into improved human-AI joint system performance.<n>We show that the performance of a human-AI system can scale positively as the AI scales up provided that humans have an accurate perception of the AI's capabilities.<n>We further show that firms can actively manage these distortions through operational policies such as cost internalization and perception alignment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-01T18:51:50Z)
• The Boundaries of Automation: A Theory of Persistent Human Participation [107.84677954791773]
  We argue that human participation may persist even with highly capable AI systems.<n>In some activities, the target is not fully specified in advance but instead emerges through the interaction itself.<n>This perspective has important implications for the limits of automation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-23T17:33:43Z)
• Align When They Want, Complement When They Need! Human-Centered Ensembles for Adaptive Human-AI Collaboration [13.041288521972563]
  In human-AI decision making, designing AI that complements human expertise has been a natural strategy to enhance human-AI collaboration.<n>An aligned AI fosters trust yet risks reinforcing suboptimal human behavior and lowering human-AI team performance.<n>We introduce a novel human-centered adaptive AI ensemble that strategically toggles between two specialist AI models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-23T18:22:58Z)
• How Do AI Agents Do Human Work? Comparing AI and Human Workflows Across Diverse Occupations [112.57167042285437]
  We study how agents do human work by presenting the first direct comparison of human and agent workers.<n>We find that agents deliver results 88.3% faster and cost 90.4-96.2% less than humans.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-26T18:10:22Z)
• Modeling AI-Human Collaboration as a Multi-Agent Adaptation [0.0]
  We develop an agent-based simulation to formalize AI-human collaboration as a function of a task.<n>We show that in modular tasks, AI often substitutes for humans - delivering higher payoffs unless human expertise is very high.<n>We also show that even "hallucinatory" AI - lacking memory or structure - can improve outcomes when augmenting low-capability humans by helping escape local optima.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-29T16:19:53Z)
• Human aversion? Do AI Agents Judge Identity More Harshly Than Performance [0.06554326244334868]
  We investigate how AI agents based on large language models assess and integrate human input.<n>We find that the AI system systematically discounts human advice, penalizing human errors more severely than algorithmic errors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-31T02:05:27Z)
• The Model Mastery Lifecycle: A Framework for Designing Human-AI Interaction [0.0]
  The utilization of AI in an increasing number of fields is the latest iteration of a long process. There is an urgent need for methods to determine how AI should be used in different situations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-23T01:00:32Z)
• Position: Towards Bidirectional Human-AI Alignment [109.57781720848669]
  We argue that the research community should explicitly define and critically reflect on "alignment" to account for the bidirectional and dynamic relationship between humans and AI.<n>We introduce the Bidirectional Human-AI Alignment framework, which not only incorporates traditional efforts to align AI with human values but also introduces the critical, underexplored dimension of aligning humans with AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-13T16:03:25Z)
• Exploration with Principles for Diverse AI Supervision [88.61687950039662]
  Training large transformers using next-token prediction has given rise to groundbreaking advancements in AI. While this generative AI approach has produced impressive results, it heavily leans on human supervision. This strong reliance on human oversight poses a significant hurdle to the advancement of AI innovation. We propose a novel paradigm termed Exploratory AI (EAI) aimed at autonomously generating high-quality training data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-13T07:03:39Z)
• BO-Muse: A human expert and AI teaming framework for accelerated experimental design [58.61002520273518]
  Our algorithm lets the human expert take the lead in the experimental process. We show that our algorithm converges sub-linearly, at a rate faster than the AI or human alone.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-03T02:56:05Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.