
As artificial intelligence systems become increasingly autonomous and assume oversight roles over other AI systems, traditional models of governance are rapidly eroding. This paper introduces the concept of the Non-Delegable Core—governance functions that must remain under human authority not because AI lacks technical capability, but because democratic legitimacy requires it. We identify an Accountability-Capability Paradox, where AI systems' very success in surpassing human capacity undermines our ability to oversee them meaningfully, and propose that the solution lies in approaches that recognize hybrid human-machine cognitive ecosystems, as exemplified by the dimensional Human-AI Governance (HAIG) framework. Rather than defaulting to recursive AI-monitoring-AI hierarchies that obscure responsibility and invite failure, HAIG-like approaches would establish adaptive trust thresholds to maintain human comprehensibility and control where it matters most. We illustrate anticipatory, flexible, and stakeholder-responsive governance scenarios in critical domains like medical triage, autonomous vehicles, and content moderation. The paper concludes with policy recommendations and institutional innovations—including AI audit courts and algorithmic juries—that support hybrid governance systems capable of sustaining democratic legitimacy in the age of agentic AI.
Authority, Human-AI Governance (HAIG), AI Oversight, dimensional governance, Agentic AI, human-AI collaboration, algorithmic accountability, Dimensional Governance, AI governance, autonomous systems, Accountability, Autonomy, Trust-Utility
Authority, Human-AI Governance (HAIG), AI Oversight, dimensional governance, Agentic AI, human-AI collaboration, algorithmic accountability, Dimensional Governance, AI governance, autonomous systems, Accountability, Autonomy, Trust-Utility
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 0 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
