https://taxonomy.eticas.ai/risk/autonomy-agency
Maturity: emerging
The risk that an AI system undermines the capacity of the people who use or operate it to exercise judgement and control. This includes deference to automated outputs, miscalibrated trust, erosion of human skills, dependence that leaves people or organisations unable to function without the system, and human oversight that exists in form but cannot be exercised in practice.
This category is emerging. Assessment methods are still being developed. Definitions and subcategories may evolve.
Also known as: Autonomy & Agency · Autonomy & Human Agency · Human-AI Interaction
System type: ADM and LLM systems
Lifecycle stages: Post Processing
Status. Each mapping shows what it rests on. Reviewed means a reviewer has confirmed the mapping against the concept’s current definition and the framework edition the taxonomy currently references; when the only confirmation is that of the person who wrote the mapping, it reads Reviewed (author’s confirmation). Outdated means it was reviewed, but the concept’s definition has changed since, so the review has to be repeated. The other statuses mean that no review has been recorded yet. Inherited mappings have been in the taxonomy since before v5.7.0 and are unchanged. They carry no record of who made them or how, and some were checked by hand when the taxonomy first published its mappings. Agent-proposed mappings come from a review carried out by AI agents, which read the framework’s text and the concept’s definition and agreed on the relation; no person has confirmed them yet. Provisional mappings were made without access to the framework’s text. Unreviewed mappings are older mappings whose target or relation was revised in v5.7.0, and any other mapping without a review. Mappings to a superseded edition of a framework are not shown: where the provision continues, they are carried to the current edition. Mappings a review has changed or rejected are not shown.
| Framework | Reference | Status |
|---|---|---|
| EU AI Act (Regulation 2024/1689) | Article 14 — Human oversight | Agent-proposed |
| ISO/IEC 42001:2023 — AI Management System | A.9.3 Objectives for responsible use of AI system | Agent-proposed |
| AIUC-1 — AI Underwriting Company Standard | Flag high-risk outputs for human review | Inherited |
| Council of Europe Framework Convention on AI (CETS No. 225) | Article 7 — Human dignity and individual autonomy | Unreviewed |
| Council of Europe Framework Convention on AI (CETS No. 225) | Article 8 — Transparency and oversight | Unreviewed |
| NIST AI Risk Management Framework (AI 100-1) | GOVERN 3.2: Policies and procedures are in place to define and differentiate roles and responsibilities for human-AI configurations and oversight of AI systems. | Unreviewed |
| NIST AI 600-1 — Generative AI Risk Profile | Human-AI Configuration | Inherited |
| OECD AI Principles | 1.2(b) Mechanisms and safeguards, such as capacity for human agency and oversight | Agent-proposed |
| Framework | Reference | Status |
|---|---|---|
| MIT AI Risk Repository | Human-Computer Interaction | Inherited |
| W3C Data Privacy Vocabulary — AI Extension | Human Oversight | Agent-proposed |
| W3C Data Privacy Vocabulary — AI Extension | Human Oversight Ineffective | Agent-proposed |