Algarch
Back to blog

Your Code Sucks Too: The HITL Delusion

June 14, 2025

Your Code Sucks Too: The HITL Delusion

I need to say something that's going to piss off a lot of people in tech. But someone has to call out the elephant in the room.

The Human-in-the-Loop (HITL) obsession isn't about safety or quality. It's about ego. It's about a bunch of people who know deep down that AI is getting better than them, so they're desperately trying to establish their relevance by positioning themselves as the "responsible adults" who need to supervise the "dangerous" AI.

Here's the uncomfortable truth: your track record as humans-in-the-loop is terrible. And the numbers prove it.

The Spectacular Failure of Human Oversight

Let me start with some inconvenient facts about human reliability in tech:

Software Bugs: The average application has 15-50 bugs per 1000 lines of code. Major software releases regularly ship with hundreds of known issues. Microsoft alone has released over 100 critical security patches this year.

Recent Outages:

  • CrowdStrike outage (July 19, 2024): One faulty code update crashed 8.5 million Windows devices globally, grounding flights, canceling surgeries, and preventing 25,000 911 calls. Damage: $10+ billion.
  • Google Cloud outage (June 12, 2025): Just last week, Google's cloud took down 13 services globally, affecting Shopify, OpenAI, and countless other businesses.
  • AT&T outage (February 2024): 125 million mobile devices offline for 12+ hours, blocking 92 million calls including 25,000 emergency calls.

These aren't AI systems... these are human-designed, human-maintained systems with armies of human engineers "in the loop."

Security Breaches: SolarWinds hack affected 18,000 organizations. Equifax leaked 147 million records. Target lost 40 million credit cards. All human-supervised systems. All "humans in the loop."

Financial Losses: The CrowdStrike incident alone cost over $10 billion. Knight Capital lost $440 million in 45 minutes due to a software bug. Boeing's 737 MAX killed 346 people due to software issues.

Now tell me again how we need humans to supervise AI for safety?

The HITL Complex Explained

The Human-in-the-Loop complex is a psychological defense mechanism. It works like this:

  1. Recognize threat: AI is getting really good at things humans used to do
  2. Feel insecurity: "What if I'm not needed anymore?"
  3. Create justification: "AI is dangerous and unreliable"
  4. Position yourself as solution: "We need humans to supervise AI"
  5. Ignore inconvenient evidence: Your own failure rate is higher than AI's

This isn't about genuine concern for AI safety. It's about job security wrapped in the language of responsibility.

I see this everywhere. Developers who ship bugs weekly suddenly become meticulous about AI code review. Product managers who've launched failed features become experts on AI reliability. CTOs who've presided over massive outages become philosophers about AI ethics.

The Numbers Don't Lie

Let's compare human vs AI error rates in areas where we have data:

Medical Diagnosis:

  • Human doctors: 10-15% diagnostic error rate
  • AI systems: 5-7% error rate (and improving)

Code Review:

  • Human reviewers: Miss 85% of security vulnerabilities
  • AI code analysis: Catches 90%+ of common security issues

Content Moderation:

  • Human moderators: 80% accuracy rate
  • AI systems: 95%+ accuracy rate

Financial Analysis:

  • Human analysts: 60% accuracy on earnings predictions
  • AI models: 75%+ accuracy

But here's what's fascinating... when AI makes a mistake, it's "AI hallucination" and "proof we need human oversight." When humans make mistakes, it's "honest mistakes" and "learning opportunities."

The Arrogance of Imperfection

The tech industry has a staggering level of arrogance for a field that routinely produces systems that don't work.

How many times have you:

  • Shipped code that broke in production?
  • Missed an obvious bug in code review?
  • Deployed a feature that users hated?
  • Estimated a project wrong by 200%+?
  • Designed a system that couldn't scale?
  • Ignored security best practices?
  • Made architecture decisions you regretted?

If you're honest, the answer is "many times." If you're a typical developer with 5+ years experience, you've probably caused more downtime than most AI systems ever will.

Yet somehow, you're qualified to be the "human in the loop" that ensures AI doesn't make mistakes?

The Real Motivation Behind HITL

Let me tell you what's really happening here. I've worked with hundreds of developers and executives over the past few years. I've seen the fear in their eyes when they realize what AI can do.

The HITL obsession isn't about safety. It's about relevance.

Scenario 1: AI can write code faster and with fewer bugs than you can. Your response: "But AI needs human oversight for safety!"

Scenario 2: AI can analyze data and spot patterns you'd miss. Your response: "But humans need to validate AI insights!"

Scenario 3: AI can handle customer support better than your team. Your response: "But customers need human empathy!"

Notice the pattern? Every time AI gets better at something, suddenly humans become "essential" for that exact thing.

This is the same industry that:

  • Automated away manufacturing jobs without caring about human oversight
  • Replaced cashiers with self-checkout without human validation
  • Eliminated travel agents with booking websites
  • Destroyed entire industries with "disruption"

But now that it's YOUR job at risk, suddenly we need "responsible AI" and "human-centered design."

The Inconvenient Truth About AI Reliability

Here's what the data actually shows about AI vs human reliability:

Consistency: AI systems perform the same task the same way every time. Humans have bad days, get tired, make emotional decisions, and have biases.

Scale: AI can handle thousands of tasks simultaneously without degrading performance. Humans get overwhelmed, make more mistakes under pressure, and have physical limitations.

Learning: AI systems improve with every interaction and share knowledge instantly. Humans forget things, repeat mistakes, and learning doesn't transfer between individuals.

Availability: AI systems work 24/7 without breaks. Humans work 8 hours, take vacations, get sick, and retire.

Bias: AI systems can be audited, tested, and corrected for bias. Human bias is often unconscious and harder to detect or fix.

The only honest advantage humans have is creativity and novel problem-solving. Everything else? AI is catching up fast, and in many cases, has already surpassed human performance.

The Cost of the HITL Delusion

This Human-in-the-Loop complex isn't just annoying... it's expensive and dangerous.

Expensive: Companies are hiring armies of "AI trainers," "prompt engineers," and "AI safety experts" to supervise systems that often work better without human interference. You're literally paying people to make your AI worse.

Slow: Every "human checkpoint" in your AI workflow adds latency, bottlenecks, and delays. Your competitors who trust AI are moving faster.

Limiting: When you assume AI needs constant human supervision, you design systems that can't scale and can't improve. You're artificially limiting AI capability to protect human feelings.

Dangerous: Sometimes human judgment is worse than AI judgment. When you override AI recommendations with human "intuition," you often make things worse.

Real Examples of HITL Failures

Let me share some real examples from my client work:

Case 1: A financial services company insisted on human approval for all AI-generated investment recommendations. The human-approved recommendations performed 15% worse than pure AI recommendations. The "human expertise" was actually destroying value.

Case 2: A healthcare company required doctors to review all AI diagnostic suggestions. The doctors spent 80% of their time confirming what the AI already got right and missed 60% of the cases where the AI was actually wrong. The human oversight made the system both slower and less accurate.

Case 3: A software company insisted on human code review for all AI-generated code. The human reviewers approved code with obvious bugs while rejecting perfectly good AI code because it "looked weird." The human review process introduced more bugs than it caught.

Case 4: A customer service company required human agents to review all AI responses before sending. The human agents routinely made the responses worse by adding unnecessary complexity, emotional language, and factual errors.

In every case, the humans insisted they were "adding value" and "ensuring quality." The data showed the opposite.

What's Really Happening

Here's what I think is really going on:

The tech industry is having an identity crisis. For decades, we've been the "smart ones" who automated other people's jobs. We've been the ones who built the systems that made human workers obsolete.

Now the tables have turned. AI is coming for our jobs. And we don't like it.

So we're doing what every industry does when faced with obsolescence: we're trying to regulate and control the thing that threatens us.

The difference is, we're smart enough to couch our self-interest in the language of ethics and safety. We're not just trying to save our jobs... we're "ensuring responsible AI development" and "protecting society from dangerous automation."

It's brilliant, actually. Instead of admitting we're scared of being replaced, we're positioning ourselves as the heroes who will save the world from reckless AI.

The Better Path Forward

Look, I'm not saying humans have no role in AI systems. I'm saying the current HITL obsession is based on ego, not evidence.

Here's what actually makes sense:

Use AI where it's better: If AI can do something faster, cheaper, and more accurately than humans, let it. Stop inserting humans into workflows just to feel important.

Focus on human strengths: Humans are still better at creative problem-solving, complex reasoning, and handling novel situations. Focus on those areas instead of trying to supervise AI at tasks it already does better.

Design for AI capabilities: Instead of designing AI systems to fit human limitations, design systems that leverage AI's actual strengths. Stop artificially constraining AI to make humans feel needed.

Measure actual outcomes: Stop assuming human oversight improves things. Measure it. In many cases, you'll find human "oversight" makes things worse.

Accept AI superiority: In areas where AI is genuinely better than humans, accept it and move on. Your ego isn't worth limiting your company's capabilities.

The Uncomfortable Future

Here's the future that the HITL complex is trying to avoid:

AI will get better at more and more tasks. The areas where humans are clearly superior will shrink rapidly. Companies that embrace AI superiority will outcompete companies that insist on human oversight.

The choice isn't whether this will happen. The choice is whether you'll be part of the solution or part of the problem.

You can spend the next few years trying to convince people that AI needs human babysitting. You can create elaborate processes for human review and approval. You can hire teams of prompt engineers and AI trainers.

Or you can accept that AI is getting better than humans at most cognitive tasks and start building systems that leverage that superiority instead of fighting it.

The Real Question

The real question isn't "How do we keep humans in the loop?"

The real question is "How do we build systems that work as well as possible?"

If that means AI with minimal human oversight, so be it. If that means humans handling the creative work while AI handles the routine work, fine. If that means AI making most decisions while humans handle exceptions, great.

But stop pretending that inserting humans into AI workflows automatically makes things better. Stop using "safety" as an excuse for irrelevance. Stop fearmongering about AI errors while ignoring human errors.

Your bugs have caused more problems than AI hallucinations ever will. Your outages have lost more money than AI mistakes ever will. Your security failures have caused more damage than AI vulnerabilities ever will.

Maybe it's time to admit that the humans-in-the-loop aren't as infallible as they pretend to be.

The Bottom Line

The Human-in-the-Loop complex is holding back AI progress and limiting business value. It's time to call it what it is: fear disguised as expertise.

If you're genuinely better than AI at something, prove it with results, not rhetoric. If you're not better than AI at something, get out of the way and let AI do what it does best.

The companies that figure this out first will have an enormous competitive advantage. The companies that keep insisting on human oversight for everything will be left behind.

Your choice.

Want to build AI systems that actually work instead of systems designed to protect human egos? Let's talk about what's actually possible when you stop limiting AI to make humans feel better.