All courses / Landscape / Module 2 / Chapter 6
Learning objectives
After the lesson the participant can:
- Explain why the autonomy level belongs to an action in a context and not to a product.
- Interpret the survey figures on use, trust and automated management, stating what each survey did not ask.
- Draft a table of action classes and levels for one AI use, in the form of a decision-rights view row.
- Identify where a legal binary, such as Article 22 of the GDPR, remains the question.
Key concepts
- The binary instinct
- The habit of seeing two states where the data show a scale: automated or manual, human or machine, in the loop or out of it. It is a cousin of the habit Rosling named the gap instinct, applied to work.
- Level per action class
- The same system can hold Level 1 for one action and Level 3 for another. AI Red Team sets the level per action from its reversibility, blast radius, confidence in the system, exposure to attacker-controlled input and the decision tier.
- The line between Level 2 and Level 3
- The line that matters is between Level 2 Supervised and Level 3 Bounded, because above it a class of actions happens without a person approving each one. It is the difference between approving each action and having approved a playbook.
- A gradient of automated management
- In the AIM-WORK survey, 24 per cent of EU workers reported rosters and 21 per cent tasks allocated automatically, while 5 per cent had the speed of their work set automatically. The forms that arrange work are reported far more often than those that press on a person directly.
- Rule of thumb: which level, which action
- Ask at which level, for which action: automated is five answers, not one. Apply it whenever a sentence contains automated, autonomous, manual or human in the loop.
Interactive exercises
Do them here and get feedback at once. Choose a card and then where it belongs, or drag it.
Interactive exercise 1 · Sort
Which level, for which action
Place each action at the autonomy level the chapter records for it at the start of 2027.
Interactive exercise 2 · Match
What each survey asked
Pair each survey with the figure it produced. The chapter stresses that the questions differ in population, period and wording.
Teaching plan
| 10 min | Opening: the tender line Is the system automated? The teacher asks three participants to answer as the union representative, the head of home care and the data protection officer. |
| 25 min | Lecture on the evidence with Figures 6.1 to 6.3: use and trust among developers, the eight forms of automated management, and the illustrative counts of units per level. The teacher states at each step what the survey did not ask. |
| 15 min | Guided reading of Figure 6.5: the four actions and three levels of the SOC investigation agent HM-SOC, and where the vertical between the third and fourth columns falls. |
| 30 min | Exercise: participants write the levels per action class for a rostering system or a system of their own. |
| 10 min | Closing: where the rule stops applying, and why a higher level is not worse as such but defensible or not in relation to reversibility. |
Discussion
- Close to half of the developers who answered used AI tools daily while about 3 per cent highly trusted the output. The author reads this as Level 1 Assisted seen from the inside and calls it an interpretation. What other readings fit the same two panels?
- Neither survey of automated management asked who could override an allocation. What would you need to ask the workers or the employer to place task allocation at a level?
- A system described as having a human in the loop may be Level 2 with approvals given in seconds. Which measurements would show your organisation that approval had become a reflex?
Written exercise
Exercise · 30 minutes
From a tick to a table
Work in threes on Nordvik Region's rostering system NR-SW as it stands at the start of 2027, or on an AI use of your own. List its action classes; for NR-SW these are drafting a roster, offering an open shift and flagging a breach of the rest rules. For each class write the autonomy level it holds, who can change that level, and whether a policy point enforces it or a document merely describes it. Mark the unit's ceiling and name the tier in the seat. Then draw the row by hand as the decision-rights view would: a bar to the ceiling, thin bars per action class, a filled or hollow diamond and the seat.
Deliverable: A table of action classes with level, decision-holder and enforcement, and a hand-drawn V4 row for the unit with ceiling, thin bars, diamond and seat.
Self-test
Choose an answer to see whether it is right, or open the answer below each question.
In Hansa Mutual's decision-rights view, at which level does the SOC investigation agent HM-SOC hold the action of wiping a host, and why?
Show the answer
D. Level 0 Advisory, because a wiped host is hard to reverse, so the agent proposes and a person does it
Wiping a host stops at Level 0 Advisory: the agent may propose it and a person does it, because a wiped host is hard to reverse. Enriching an alert runs to Level 4, and isolating a workstation and revoking a session to Level 3.Which two forms of automated management did EU workers report most often in the AIM-WORK survey?
Show the answer
B. Rosters or shift hours allocated automatically, and work tasks allocated automatically
Rosters or shift hours allocated automatically were reported by 24 per cent of EU workers and work tasks by 21 per cent. After them the shares fall away, down to 5 per cent for pace and 4 per cent for allocation by customer ratings.What does the chapter say the EU27 rows of the Stack Overflow survey figure are?
Show the answer
A. A filter on a self-selected, unweighted sample, not a representative European figure
The sample is self-selected and unweighted, and the EU27 rows are a filter on it. The chapter says they are not a representative European figure.