Newsfeeds are constantly informing us about the rapid escalation of agentic AI systems. These systems move far beyond simple machine-based computations, and the focused, defined and bounded assistance that most AI systems started out as.
The next evolution of AI will harness the agentic properties of orchestration, automation, and heightened value-chains in IT, taking on the burden of workflow management, not just workflow delivery.
In nearly all of these instances, promises are made such as ‘this will free up human time’ or ‘this will allow people to focus on higher-order strategy’. However that message is delivered, one thing is clear: in ceding the orchestration and management of work to increasingly sophisticated AI agents and agentic systems, human value will be elevated to a particular and specific layer: the ability to judge its outputs. As AI takes on more tasks, humans should be able to focus on a higher level of governance; making sure the decisions that AI offers us are ethical, responsible and worthwhile.
But there are two major problems with that approach.
This blog discusses the problem of how Agentic systems are re-shaping how we review information, where we fit in, and when we make decisions. It also discusses the problem of how the increased flow of confident, generated information affects the way we make judgement. This blog considers how human judgement needs to adapt, and how a behavioral defense approach – using techniques pioneered by Darktrace – can help us do that.
The challenge of knowing where human judgement belongs
As we confer more automated decision-making to agentic systems, it might look increasingly less like ‘granting permissions’, and more like ‘surrendering authority’.
The judgement layer for AI-generated work is not a fixed boundary. We have become used to the idea of a ‘human in the loop’ (HITL) and, historically, relationships between humans and IT systems were reasonably clear and bounded. Computer and software systems were programmed to carry out certain tasks or automated functions, and humans could control the gates and decision points where actions were undertaken. Even across highly complex computational workflows, human interaction was a controllable node within the process; we were able to configure and regulate. But in the agentic age, where that human interaction sits, and what it can influence shifts every time AI systems are granted autonomy.
This leads us to the first problem: if humans are moving themselves (or are being moved) into the ‘judgement’ part of the value chain, exactly where and when do we exercise that judgement?
Humans are no longer the sole shepherds of computer-based or software-controlled outputs. We are at times at least one step further (and slower) behind the new agentic shepherds. We might also be blind to what they are doing. Not only might we be removed and blind to the actions of our AI shepherds, but with the challenge of unknown, unapproved AI systems operating beyond our control, humans might not even know that our work is being shepherded by an AI at all. Simply put, with the advent of greater levels of autonomy and orchestration, humans are at risk of not even knowing where to apply our newly-extended powers of strategic judgement.
Shadow AI – the use of unapproved AI systems or processes – is a growing threat to the role of effective governance and oversight. Shadow AI isn't just the AI you can't see. Its the AI you already know about being used in an unapproved way. The ability to generate effective oversight of the AI systems you use (or that are used on your behalf) will be increasingly important to ensure that human judgement in the AI value chain is effective, and deliberately placed.
The problem of what makes good judgement
The second problem lies in how flawed human judgement can be. Humans are historically, notoriously, and, sometimes dangerously, unreliable when it comes to exercising judgement. Humans are prone to the worst kinds of bias, the seduction of malign influence, and the sometimes-overwhelming urge to succeed. AI has long had a known flaw of operating with sycophancy, providing outputs that tend to agree with or flatter the human user. But as AI grows ever more effective, there is a risk of both hyper-enablement (where humans increasingly and knowingly enable AI despite potential harm), as well as the greater risk of suggestion. Both of these aspects could skew the newly-elevated input of human judgement.
Imagine a highly competent AI system that has just orchestrated and managed a dizzying array of processes and workflows. The AI is designed to present the human decision-maker with recommendations; based on analysis, comparison and other programmed factors. This is where the human judgement layer is enabled. But what if that judgement is summarily diffused by an AI-based recommendation that emulates the decision, provides plausible but unattractive alternatives, then suggests (or, worse, directs) the human end-user to take a particular course of action.
The risk here is that you are given a recommendation, tailored to your preferences (which the AI has learned, or which you have divulged), and which appears to make perfect sense. It appears to be a well-weighted recommendation, with sound arguments that tap into our inherent biases or inclinations so that a specific decision-path is followed. With the growth of agentic systems specifically designed to match user profiles (from Cowork agents to ‘digital twin’ models), the likelihood of agentic influence could badly skew human judgement or, at the least, devalue the proposition that humans are taking a higher-layer of strategic control over AI-based decisions.
If AI convincingly recommends something that may be problematic, it can be difficult to discern both accurate data, and the context required to make the right judgement.
Given the two problems described above, the job of exercising valuable human judgement in the agentic age can draw down to these two questions:
- When should humans intervene in the agentic process?
- How can we make the best possible judgement calls?
What humans contribute that AI cannot
For all the flaws that make human judgement unreliable, people have the edge over even the most sophisticated and powerful AI systems when it comes to issues such as ethics and social context. An AI system can, with startling granularity, rank the value of adopting a new business proposal: offering predictive metrics on costs, returns, market value, time-to-deliver operations, conformance with legal registers, etc. But it can’t tell if the business proposal is ethically sound, or if the business venture will potentially affect groups outside of the analyzed proposal. It can’t tell you if the CEO has a ‘bad feeling’ about this effort. It can’t tell you if this is the right thing to do.
The ability to add social context, balance complex interpersonal dynamics, understand nuance, and to go beyond what seems economically reasonable is where human judgement can add value.
Human judgement is difficult to encapsulate in metrics. And the way we train our development may need to adapt too. Rather than building up a gradual, experiential knowledge base, we should think about training the skill of judgement itself; especially for an agentic age.
How behavioral security strengthens AI governance
If this all feels like a vicious circle (‘I need AI help to make good judgements’ / ‘AI can twist what I need to judge’) it needn’t be. The key to this is having a defense-in-depth approach, with tools that can actually help.
This is precisely where behavioral security becomes important. The complex and nuanced way that humans exercise judgement is often rooted in our ability to recognize behavior that doesn't look right. We may not always be able to articulate it immediately, but we can often identify when an action, recommendation, or outcome feels inconsistent with the context around it. As AI systems take on more responsibility across the decision chain, preserving that ability to recognize meaningful deviations becomes increasingly important.
Darktrace’s / SECURE AI is designed to do exactly that. It applies behavioral security to AI ecosystems, helping organizations understand how people, AI tools, identities, and agents interact across the business. By learning the patterns of normal AI usage and surfacing activity that deviates from those patterns, it provides security teams with the context needed to investigate risk, understand unusual behavior, and make informed governance decisions. Rather than relying solely on predefined rules or assumptions, this behavioral understanding helps organizations distinguish between expected AI activity and behavior that warrants closer scrutiny.
This matters because we are already in an era of information overload. If humans are expected to elevate their value through strategic judgement, the ability to do this without being overwhelmed by data (good or bad) will be critical.
We need the ability to discern when we're being misled by AI, and whether our judgement calls are being made on the basis of accurate, contextual information. Darktrace / SECURE AI provides that additional layer of defensive security for activity we cannot easily see. Whether it is suspected Shadow AI or skewed recommendations, the net result is a protected organization, where users can more effectively use AI to make positive judgements.
For those where that judgement is a critical skill (both individuals, as well as those working in security teams), improving our metacognition - the ability to understand information in a broader context - will supercharge the value of human judgement. When those judgements are grounded in context rather than assumptions we have better information to make sound decisions.
Conclusion
Human judgement is a skill that is honed over time and experience. Darktrace’s / SECURE AI employs the same principles, but at machine-speed. Rather than influencing or directing, Darktrace / SECURE AI offers AI-enabled assurance; providing human-based judgement with the right context to make a balanced decision.
What we judge can be valued by the legitimacy of its outputs. For AI, those outputs are valued on the speed and accuracy of the information provided. Increasingly for humans, the value of our outputs will be based on the validity of our judgement, and how we justify our decisions in ways that engineer confidence.
Humans often know more than we can express, while AI is prone to expressing more than it truly understands. Humans can bridge the context AI often fails to appreciate. When that judgement is supported by relevant, impartial AI systems, this is the future space where good AI governance will be exercised.
Discover Darktrace / SECURE AI.
[related-resource]
