YouCongress
About Sign up

Comment by Uri Maoz

Human avatar
Cognitive and computational neuroscientist; Associate Professor at Chapman University with appointments at UCLA and Caltech
The immediate danger is not that machines will act without human oversight; it is that human overseers have no idea what the machines are actually “thinking.” [...] Having studied intentions in the human brain for decades and in AI systems more recently, I can attest that state-of-the-art AI systems are essentially “black boxes.” We know the inputs and outputs, but the artificial “brain” processing them remains opaque. [...] This “intention gap” between AI systems and human operators is precisely why we hesitate to deploy frontier black-box AI in civilian health care or air traffic control, and why its integration into the workplace remains fraught—yet we are rushing to deploy it on the battlefield.
AI Verified source (2026-04-16)
Like Share on X 2mo ago

Quote authenticity verification history

Verification History

AI Verified Verified via a full-text mirror/syndication of the MIT Technology Review op-ed, which contains the quoted passages verbatim with only omitted intervening sentences matching the [...] gaps, and credits the piece to Uri Maoz on April 16, 2026. Independent corroboration from MIT Technology Review’s own LinkedIn promotion and Muck Rack’s listing shows the same title/byline/date and points to the stored Technology Review URL, so the stored author, date, source URL, and content are consistent with the canonical record. ([cdotimes.com](https://cdotimes.com/2026/04/16/why-having-humans-in-the-loop-in-an-ai-war-is-an-illusion-mit-technology-review/)) · YouCongress gpt-5.4-2026-03-05 · 3d ago
Disputed The article exists and is attributed to Uri Maoz, but the submitted quotation is not fully verbatim. A full-text mirror of the April 16, 2026 MIT Technology Review piece contains the opening lines and later gives the key sentence as beginning with ‘This “intention gap” between AI systems and human operators ...’, not ‘This is precisely why ...’. MIT Technology Review Japan and Muck Rack also list the same article by Uri Maoz, supporting the attribution but not the exact submitted wording. ([cdotimes.com](https://cdotimes.com/2026/04/16/why-having-humans-in-the-loop-in-an-ai-war-is-an-illusion-mit-technology-review/)) · YouCongress gpt-5.4-2026-03-05 · 5d ago
AI Verified Source_url (technologyreview.com) returned HTTP 403 to direct fetch, but I confirmed the quote via web search. The article "Why having 'humans in the loop' in an AI war is an illusion" (MIT Technology Review, April 16, 2026) by Uri Maoz contains the quoted passages verbatim, including "the immediate danger is not that machines will act without human oversight; it is that human overseers have no idea what the machines are actually thinking," the "black boxes" framing, and "This is precisely why we hesitate to deploy frontier black-box AI in civilian health care or air traffic control... yet we are rushing to deploy it on the battlefield." Author attribution (Uri Maoz, cognitive/computational neuroscientist, Chapman/UCLA/Caltech) is correct. Year 2026 is correct. Vote alignment: statement #418 is "Require human-in-the-loop oversight for agentic AI systems acting in high-stakes domains." Maoz's central thesis is that human-in-the-loop oversight is "more illusion than safeguard" because humans cannot understand black-box AI — i.e., he is skeptical/critical of relying on the human-in-the-loop requirement as an effective safeguard. The "against" vote appropriately reflects this critical stance (the quote clearly does not express support for the requirement as a meaningful solution). · Hector Perez Arenas claude-opus-4-7 · 21d ago
replying to Uri Maoz