Skip to content

Human factors: add research evidence and propose fire drill experiment - #24

Merged
ralphbean merged 3 commits into
mainfrom
human-factors-evidence
Mar 18, 2026
Merged

Human factors: add research evidence and propose fire drill experiment#24
ralphbean merged 3 commits into
mainfrom
human-factors-evidence

Conversation

@twaugh

@twaugh twaugh commented Mar 16, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor
  • Add research evidence from established automation and AI-specific studies to human-factors.md
  • Add a new section questioning whether the vision's two-point model (strategic intent + guarded paths) is sufficient, given that the oversight quality it depends on degrades without ongoing hands-on involvement
  • Connect human factors back into the autonomy spectrum as open questions, so autonomy decisions can account for human effectiveness
  • Propose experiment 002: an agent outage fire drill (chaos engineering for human capability) to test whether skill atrophy is real in this context

@twaugh
twaugh requested a review from a team as a code owner March 16, 2026 14:52

@ralphbean ralphbean left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good, but I want to move the experiments to experiments/ out of docs/experiments/.

Can you move it there?

twaugh and others added 2 commits March 17, 2026 12:08
Ground the human factors concerns in established research (Bainbridge,
Endsley & Kiris, Parasuraman & Manzey) and recent AI-specific studies
(Anthropic skill formation, METR productivity trial). Add a new section
questioning whether the vision's two-point model of human participation
(strategic intent + guarded paths) is sufficient, given evidence that
the oversight quality it depends on degrades without ongoing hands-on
involvement.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Add a note to graduation criteria acknowledging that autonomy changes
the human role, not just the agent's. Add open questions about whether
human engagement should be a graduation criterion, whether intermediate
automation levels preserve better oversight, and whether engagement
metrics should trigger autonomy revocation.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
@twaugh
twaugh force-pushed the human-factors-evidence branch from 25fa5d9 to 0d16647 Compare March 17, 2026 12:08
@twaugh

twaugh commented Mar 17, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Can you move it there?

Moved.

Chaos engineering for human capability — disable agents for two weeks
after months of autonomy and measure whether the team can still operate
at pre-autonomy baselines. Tests skill atrophy directly and surfaces
agent dependency as an organisational risk.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
@twaugh
twaugh force-pushed the human-factors-evidence branch from 0d16647 to 2ab52ad Compare March 17, 2026 12:20
@ralphbean
ralphbean merged commit ceeff8d into main Mar 18, 2026

### The ironies of automation

Bainbridge's foundational ["Ironies of Automation" (1983)](https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-1098(83)90046-8) identified the central paradox: automating a task removes the practice that keeps operators skilled enough to intervene when automation fails. The more reliable the automation, the worse the problem — because operators have fewer opportunities to exercise their skills, and failures are rarer but harder to catch. This remains one of the most-cited papers in human factors research and its core argument is directly applicable: if agents handle all routine development, the domain experts who approve guarded-path changes lose the practice that makes their approval meaningful.

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for these citations, particularly these first two, "Irony of Automation" and "The Out-of-the-Loop Performance Problem".

I've seen these dynamics play out a couple times. I didn't know there were formal terms or papers for this.

@github-actions
github-actions Bot deleted the human-factors-evidence branch April 19, 2026 05:20
waynesun09 added a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 22, 2026
…ndbox image

pi's google-vertex provider is Gemini-only and the upstream anthropic-vertex
provider (earendil-works/pi#5262) is still open, so the interim provider
from the runtime plan is adopted: twoGiants/pi-anthropic-vertex v0.1.13
(commit d3c9d10d, MIT), a thin shim that registers "anthropic-vertex" and
delegates streaming to pi's built-in Anthropic provider through an
AnthropicVertex client.

- pinned by git tag + SHA256 of the GitHub tag tarball; dependencies from
  its vendored lockfile via npm ci --omit=dev --omit=peer --ignore-scripts
  (29 packages, no install scripts). --omit=peer mirrors pi's own package
  installer: the peer deps are pi itself, which the extension loader
  aliases to the running pi, so a local copy would be the wrong version.
  Verified with a local layer build.
- installed under /opt/pi-extensions (sandbox.SandboxPiExtensionsDir),
  root-owned, read-only and outside PI_CODING_AGENT_DIR, so pi never
  auto-loads it; Run will pass runtime.PiVertexExtensionPath with -e.
- imports checked against pi 0.84.2's pi-ai/compat exports; the mirrored
  option mapping was last synced upstream to pi 0.81.1 (sync issue #24
  open) — documented as a re-check item on PI_VERSION bumps.
- renovate tracks the tag (github-tags, no automerge); README pin table,
  docs/runtimes.md constraints and the image test updated.

Assisted-by: Claude (fix)
Signed-off-by: Wayne Sun <gsun@redhat.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants