Human involvement in AI-driven work may be permanent, not provisional: some tasks require human perspectives, developmental value, or emergent targets that only arise through interaction, so human–AI co-construction can be constitutive of outcomes rather than a patch for imperfect AI.

Main Finding

Human participation in AI-mediated work can persist even if AI becomes highly capable for three distinct reasons: (1) technical/complementarity (AI lacks or differs in useful capabilities), (2) normative/developmental (participation itself has independent value for responsibility, learning, or agency), and (3) emergence — most importantly, when the evaluative target is not fully specified in advance but is progressively constituted through interaction. The paper formalizes "target emergence" to show that for many tasks the target (what counts as success) is co-constructed through engagement with candidate artifacts, so human–AI co-construction is not merely a temporary fix for imperfect AI but a persistent feature of some activities.

Key Points

• Three grounds for persistent human–AI co-construction:
  • Technical/Complementarity: humans compensate for AI failures or add complementary embodied/social capabilities. This basis weakens as AI capabilities improve or replicate human functions.
  • Normative/Developmental: humans value participation for accountability, learning, skill formation, or identity; such participation can persist independently of AI ability.
  • Emergence (central contribution): some tasks have targets that only become determinate through interaction (target emergence). Even flawless AI cannot fully automate these tasks because the very target is produced through the interaction.
• Definition and distinctions:
  • Target (Gt): an evaluative criterion-structure that determines success/relevance/improvement at time t. Targets can be partially specified and evolve.
  • Distinguishes three levels of interaction: artifact-level (modify outputs), execution-level (modify how outputs are produced), target-level (modify what counts as success).
  • Target emergence differs from "objective co-construction": objective co-construction is a process where objectives are negotiated; target emergence is a task property where the target is constituted by interaction.
• Mechanisms and theoretical support:
  • Constructive preference literature, bounded rationality (adaptive aspiration/satisficing), design theory (co-evolution of problem and solution), wicked problems, and multi-criteria decision aiding all support the plausibility of target emergence.
  • Examples: design and creative tasks, scientific discovery, multi-objective trade-offs, and contexts where showing alternatives changes preferences (compromise effect).
• Practical upshot: Even with very capable AI, substantive human participation can be required when the human's ongoing evaluative activity shapes the target via exploration, reflection, and comparison of AI-generated artifacts.

Data & Methods

• Methodological approach: conceptual/theoretical analysis combining:
  • Formal definitions (space of artifacts X, targets Gt),
  • Taxonomy of interaction levels (artifact, execution, target),
  • Synthesis of literatures across AI, decision theory, design research, cognitive science, and human–AI collaboration.
• Evidence base: thought experiments, canonical examples (software engineering, scientific discovery, product design), and references to empirical and theoretical work (e.g., constructive preferences, design co-evolution, human–AI complementarity studies).
• No primary empirical dataset: the paper advances a theoretical framework intended to re-orient empirical and design work; it suggests testable implications and directions for empirical classification of tasks by their degree of target emergence.

Implications for AI Economics

• Rethinking automation potential:
  • Traditional automation models that treat tasks as having fixed objectives will overestimate automatability. Tasks with high target emergence are less automatable because the objective is produced during work.
  • Economic projections of job displacement/adoption should incorporate a "target emergence" dimension in addition to routine/nonroutine or cognitive/physical distinctions.
• Labor demand and task composition:
  • Persistent demand will remain for roles involving evaluative judgment, iterative sensemaking, creative reframing, and negotiation — especially where targets are socially situated or evolve through interaction.
  • Wage and skill premia may rise for workers with abilities to co-construct targets (sensemaking, meta-evaluation, interpretive judgment, oversight).
• Firm strategy and productivity:
  • Firms should invest in human–AI systems designed for co-construction (tools that facilitate iterative exploration, comparison, and reflection) rather than pure automation for tasks with emergent targets.
  • Productivity gains may come from improved joint human–AI processes rather than full substitution. Measuring productivity will need to capture process improvements and emergent-value creation, not just outputs.
• Complementarity and markets for AI tools:
  • Markets will favor AI products that enable effective co-construction (interfaces that present alternatives, traceability of reasoning, mechanisms for human feedback that shape targets).
  • Pricing and adoption models should account for the continuing need for skilled human participation; e.g., subscription/augmenting models rather than replace-and-exit ones.
• Policy, regulation, and institutions:
  • Accountability regimes should recognize that outcomes may be co-constructed; liability and audit frameworks must cover interactive decision processes, not only final artifacts.
  • Education and training policy should prioritize capabilities for evaluative judgment, interpretive skills, and human–AI coordination.
• Measurement and empirical research agenda:
  • Develop operational metrics for "target emergence" to classify tasks (e.g., how much evaluative criteria change in response to candidate artifacts).
  • Empirical studies: estimate automation probabilities conditional on target emergence; measure wage differentials and adoption patterns across tasks varying in emergence; run field experiments on firm adoption strategies for co-construction tools.
  • Evaluate AI systems not only on static outcome accuracy but on how they influence the evolution of targets (e.g., do they expand, stabilize, or bias human evaluative criteria?).
• Alignment and welfare considerations:
  • Alignment efforts must consider evolving human preference trajectories (constructive alignment): alignment is an ongoing control problem over how AI interaction shapes future preferences and targets.
  • There are welfare trade-offs: co-construction can improve creativity and learning but also risks shaping preferences in ways that concentrate influence (platform effects), possibly creating externalities that policy should address.

Short practical suggestions for economists and policymakers: - Incorporate a target-emergence indicator into task and occupation-level automation risk models. - Fund R&D and procurement that prioritize co-construction-supporting interfaces (explainability, alternative generation, traceability). - Update labor-market forecasts and reskilling programs to emphasize evaluative, interpretive, and coordination skills. - Design regulation and auditing frameworks to capture interactive, emergent decision processes, not just final outputs.

Overall, the paper argues that accurate economic models of automation and policy prescriptions must account for tasks where the objective itself is endogenous to human–AI interaction.