I am sure you have seen and heard this phrase that has become almost a default in conversations about AI and work. I have been thinking about it for months. It is supposed to be a reassuring phrase. That, in everything that AI is taking over, humans are still somewhere in the system overseeing, validating, and intervening when needed. But in the last few weeks, the more I have mulled over this phrase, the less reassured I have felt.
But something shifted last week.
 |
Image credit: NASA Seen during Artemis II’s lunar flyby on April 6, 2026, the Moon and Earth align in the same frame, each partially illuminated by the Sun. |
On April 10, 2026, four astronauts completed a mission to fly around the far side of the Moon. They went further from Earth than any humans in over 50 years. On their way back, for about 40 minutes, they were completely cut off from NASA mission control.
There was no signal and no loop; it was all human.
While I am not a 100% sure, I bet the team at NASA focused a lot on how to build and nurture the competencies of the four astronauts for this 40-minute blackout when the Orion module would be cut off entirely. All these efforts would be in preparing the humans to respond to unknown and unpredictable situations and trusting that the humans inside the spacecraft will know what to do.
 |
Image credit: NASA The Artemis II crew – (clockwise from left) Mission Specialist Christina Koch, Mission Specialist Jeremy Hansen, Commander Reid Wiseman, and Pilot Victor Glover – pause for a group photo inside the Orion spacecraft on their way home. |
NASA did not send AI to the Moon, they sent humans because fundamentally, there are many things where humans are not just meant to be in the loop, they are meant to be in the lead. I was reassured by such a mission where humans were not just a checkpoint or validation point in the system, instead they were the ones leading the design and the decisions. And if you have seen all the pictures and the beautiful, poetic expressions of the astronauts trying to reflect on what they were seeing and feeling and learning, you will agree that humans are not just validators; we are value creators.
It was Accenture CEO Julie Sweet who said, "AI future should be human in the lead", and I love this reframing. This difference between loop and lead is not a subtle one. It is a powerful way to think about how organizations must use AI, but not at the expense of losing their own ability to think, learn, grow, and become more intelligent.
When an organization like NASA sends humans to space through missions like Artemis II, it is not because machines are incapable. It is because, in environments where there is ambiguity and uncertainty and the consequences are as real as it gets, we can't afford to outsource our judgement.
So, as AI is reshaping our work and our world, instead of thinking about whether or not we keep humans in the loop, we have to think more intentionally about how to keep humans in the lead! This means thinking about how we design roles, systems, training and work so that humans continue to build their capability and thinking and they continue to feel and express and to question and engage with each other.
I have said this before. I don't think the real risk of AI is replacement. I think it is the erasure of our unique fingerprints. It is the things that each of us leaves behind as breadcrumbs that highlight the mix of who we are through our choices, decisions, and connections with other humans.
In the race to AGI, if we focus only on making AI more intelligent, we may end up designing systems and organizations that make us less intelligent. Which also means that perhaps the real work ahead is not just building smarter AI, but redefining human intelligence itself.
