The Easiest Way to Get Started with Codex

Why Read This from an HCI Perspective

This article helps you see AI not as a simple performance race, but as an interaction design problem—specifically, how users decide when to trust it and when to stop. In systems where safety matters, what matters more than ‘does it produce the right answer’ is ‘how well the system’s state is made visible’ and ‘how easily users can intervene.’ For HCI/UX practitioners, it’s useful for re-checking design criteria; for researchers, it can help turn the tensions and trade-offs that arise in real products into strong research questions.

CIT's Commentary

The more ‘intelligent’ AI agents or autonomous systems look, the more important the interface becomes. Users don’t just want outputs—they want to understand why the system made this choice, how far they can trust it, and how to stop it when something goes wrong. The key, then, lies not inside the model, but at the boundary between the user and the system. If failure modes aren’t clearly exposed, even small malfunctions can escalate into major incidents—so state transparency and designing intervention pathways are as important as performance. In practice, this perspective turns into a concrete question: rather than simply increasing speed and automation, how much control and explainability should you leave to users?

Questions to Consider While Reading

• Q.What form of state representation is most effective for helping users immediately recognize when AI has failed?
• Q.To raise the level of automation while still preserving users’ right to intervene, at what point should humans be brought back into the loop?
• Q.In the context of Korea’s mobile and social services, do we need trust-design patterns that differ from global HCI conventions?