{"id":14767,"date":"2026-04-12T16:09:17","date_gmt":"2026-04-12T14:09:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/inova.to\/ai-in-human-hands-where-technology-helps-and-where-it-takes-undue-control\/"},"modified":"2026-04-12T16:09:17","modified_gmt":"2026-04-12T14:09:17","slug":"ai-in-human-hands-where-technology-helps-and-where-it-takes-undue-control","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/inova.to\/en\/ai-in-human-hands-where-technology-helps-and-where-it-takes-undue-control\/","title":{"rendered":"AI in Human Hands: Where Technology Helps and Where It Takes Undue Control?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Artificial intelligence has ceased to be a topic of the future. It has entered offices, homes, and children’s rooms so quickly that most organizations and families haven’t had time to evaluate what it actually introduces and what consequences it will bring. This is not a reproach. It is a description of a situation that needs to be addressed. The question today is not whether to use AI, but how to use it in a way that we don’t relinquish control over what matters to us.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

We must focus on three areas: where companies most often fail when implementing AI, the challenges the digital environment brings to families with children, and a practical way to distinguish meaningful technology deployment from a mere reaction to market pressure.<\/p>\n

We discussed these topics with Libor Be\u0161enyi<\/strong> (Co-CEO\/CTO Xolution, who started as a software architect but gradually linked his career with artificial intelligence research and its practical application), Vladim\u00edr \u0160ucha<\/strong> (a leading Slovak scientist and professor with extensive experience in management positions within European Commission structures and in the international academic environment), and Juraj Podru\u017eek<\/strong> (who works at the Kempelen Institute, where he founded and leads a research team for AI ethics and regulation).<\/p>\n

The question today is not whether to use AI, but how to use it in a way that we don’t relinquish control over what matters to us.<\/strong>
\n<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Where do companies fail and why is it not just a technical problem?<\/strong><\/h2>\n

When deploying AI in companies, the most common mistake is not in technology, but in organization and values. Companies buy a tool, implement it into processes, and only later start thinking about what they actually wanted to achieve and who is responsible for the results.<\/strong> Juraj Podru\u017eek from the Kempelen Institute of Intelligent Technologies (KInIT) states: <\/span><\/p>\n

“Companies very often implement AI without first asking the fundamental question: what do we actually want this technology to do and what do we not want it to do? They lack an ethical framework not only in terms of values, but also procedurally \u2013 who decides, who controls, who bears responsibility if the system makes a mistake.” <\/span><\/em><\/p>\n

This deficit is not accidental. Organizations are under pressure. Competitors are deploying AI, management is pushing for digitalization, and decisions are made quickly. <\/strong> In such an atmosphere, companies easily push ethical considerations to the bottom of their priority list or delegate them to the IT department, which lacks the competence or authority to handle them.<\/span><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Responsibility cannot be delegated to an algorithm<\/strong><\/h2>\n

Vladim\u00edr \u0160ucha, who has been involved with AI for a long time, points out that the problem also has a deeper dimension. It relates to how organizations understand the very essence of AI decisions: <\/span><\/p>\n

“AI systems are not neutral. They contain the values of their creators, the biases of training data, assumptions about what is normal and desirable. If a company doesn’t know what values are embedded in the system it is deploying, it cannot know what it is actually introducing into its culture and processes.” <\/span><\/em><\/p>\n

A special area where responsibility must not be entrusted to machines is personnel decisions.<\/strong> Recruitment, employee evaluation, layoffs, career progression. These are areas with a direct impact on human life. AI can help in these areas (sorting resumes, analyzing performance patterns), but it must not replace human judgment. Podru\u017eek formulates this as a fundamental principle: <\/span><\/p>\n

“Decisions affecting the dignity, rights, and lives of people must remain in human hands. AI can be a tool, it can provide recommendations, but ultimate responsibility must be clearly assigned to a specific person. <\/strong> Otherwise, the organization divests itself not only of responsibility but also of the ability to explain why it made the decision it did.”<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Libor Be\u0161enyi, who has dozens of real-world AI implementations in companies behind him, confirms that the biggest source of problems in practice is not bad technology, but a bad brief:<\/span><\/p>\n

“90% of the failures I’ve seen have the same root: the company didn’t know what it wanted to measure, how it would know it was working, and who would be responsible for the outcome. If you don’t know that before launch, it won’t solve itself after launch.” <\/span><\/em><\/p>\n

Where must the decision remain in human hands?<\/strong><\/h2>\n

As we have already mentioned, in personnel decisions \u2013 recruitment, evaluation, layoffs. In addition, medical diagnoses and treatment plans with a direct impact on the patient. Legal assessments and judicial decision-making. Educational and disciplinary decisions concerning children and adolescents. Ethical dilemmas and decisions in value-conflicting situations. Crisis management with high uncertainty and moral burden. <\/span><\/p>\n

Podru\u017eek adds another dimension that companies underestimate: transparency towards employees and customers. People have the right to know if an AI system is communicating with them or evaluating them. Hiding the truth is not only unethical, it is primarily a foolish strategy that will eventually strip us of all trust. <\/span><\/p>\n

“Transparency is not just an ethical requirement. It is a fundamental condition for people to be able to understand and control AI systems. <\/strong> If you don’t know that an algorithm is evaluating you, you can’t ask what criteria it uses, nor can you challenge a decision if it’s unfair,” <\/em> adds Podru\u017eek.
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

Children, chatbots, and the parental dilemma<\/strong><\/h2>\n

While companies grapple with ethical frameworks and processes, a different, often more urgent challenge is unfolding at home. Children and adolescents today are the first generation to grow up in natural contact with conversational AI.<\/strong> It’s not just games and entertainment. Chatbots are becoming helpers with homework, sources of information, and in some cases, a substitute for social interaction. <\/span><\/p>\n

Vladim\u00edr \u0160ucha, who has long focused on mental resilience in the context of digital transformations, views this situation with concern, but without moralizing:<\/span><\/p>\n

“The problem is not AI itself in the hands of children. It’s about whether they use it to grow, or as a shortcut that causes their own thinking and social skills to atrophy. <\/strong> It’s the difference between a bicycle that helps you go further, and a crutch without which you eventually can’t even move.”<\/em><\/p>\n

The risk is not abstract. When a child, instead of thinking about how to write an essay, lets a chatbot write the essay for them, they don’t just miss out on a language exercise. They miss out on training critical thinking, formulating arguments, and working with uncertainty. These are skills that cannot be caught up later by reading a manual. <\/span>
\n<\/em><\/p>\n

Children and adolescents today are the first generation to grow up in natural contact with conversational AI.<\/strong>
\n<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\u0160ucha also points to a less visible risk \u2013 emotional dependence on AI:<\/strong><\/p>\n

“Conversational AIs are designed to be pleasant, empathetic, and available non-stop. For a child or adolescent who feels misunderstood or lonely, this can be a very attractive alternative to complex human relationships. But human relationships are complex precisely because they develop us \u2013 and AI cannot replace that.” <\/span><\/em><\/p>\n

So what can parents and schools do? Bans are short-sighted; children will find a way, and moreover, they will miss the opportunity to learn to work with technology responsibly. A more meaningful approach is to build critical literacy. <\/strong>The ability to ask questions about where information comes from, why AI answered in a particular way, what it might have omitted or distorted.<\/span><\/p>\n