Should there be a right to interact with a human instead of AI?

An Emerging but Unsettled Policy Question

Whether there should be a formal right to interact with a human instead of AI is a question that has gained increasing attention as AI has taken on a larger role in customer service, healthcare-adjacent interactions, government services, and other significant areas of daily life. It remains a genuinely debated policy question rather than one with a settled answer, and while some narrower, related rights have emerged in certain jurisdictions, a comprehensive, broadly applicable right to choose human interaction over AI does not currently exist in most places.

The debate around this question connects closely to broader discussions about human dignity and AI, since much of the argument for such a right centers on concerns about people’s autonomy and the value of human judgment and connection in significant interactions.

The Case for Establishing Such a Right

Advocates for a right to human interaction generally argue that certain kinds of decisions and interactions are simply too significant, too context-dependent, or too emotionally important to be handled entirely by an AI system without a meaningful option to escalate to a human. They point to concerns about AI errors, particularly in edge cases or unusual circumstances that automated systems may handle poorly, as well as to the broader dignity-related argument that people should retain meaningful agency over whether especially consequential interactions in their lives are mediated primarily by automated systems or by other people who can bring judgment, empathy, and accountability that current AI systems may not fully replicate.

Some advocates also frame this as a necessary check against the risk of AI errors or bias going unchallenged, arguing that maintaining a viable human alternative provides an important form of recourse and quality control, particularly in high-stakes contexts like healthcare, financial services, or government benefits determinations.

The Case for Caution or Narrower Approaches

Critics and skeptics of a broad right to human interaction raise several practical concerns. Cost is a significant one: maintaining adequate human staffing capacity alongside AI systems, sufficient to genuinely honor such a right at scale, could be expensive for businesses and governments, potentially offsetting some of the efficiency gains that motivated AI adoption in the first place. There’s also a definitional challenge — determining exactly which contexts or interactions would qualify for such a right is genuinely difficult, since drawing the line too broadly could make the right impractical to implement, while drawing it too narrowly could leave it largely symbolic rather than meaningfully protective.

Some critics also argue that the more targeted solution isn’t a broad right to human interaction generally, but narrower, more specific rights focused on the highest-stakes contexts, such as rights to human review of certain significant automated decisions, which some data protection frameworks have already begun to establish in limited form.

Bottom Line

Whether there should be a right to interact with a human instead of AI remains a genuinely contested policy question — proponents argue it would protect dignity and provide important recourse against AI errors in significant interactions, while critics raise real concerns about cost and the difficulty of defining its scope, and while some narrower related rights exist in certain jurisdictions, a comprehensive general right of this kind has not been broadly established.

Go deeper

• What is a right to explanation and does it exist for ai decisions?