The dominant story about AI is told like a weather report: it’s coming, it’s inevitable, it will accelerate, take over work, reshape society and government, and the only smart move is to adapt. It puts technology at the center of gravity and pushes humans out of the frame, turning the tool into the main character and leaving the rest of us as scenery. We keep framing the future as “technology-driven.” We accept that AI will speed up work and research, then keep growing in capability, power, and reach, compounding, surpassing us. From there, the posture becomes resignation. All that’s left is to accept the trajectory, submit to it, and stop asking the questions that would force terms onto the table. But terms are consent, accountability, limits, auditability, and the right to shut it down. But terms are consent, accountability, limits, auditability, and the right to shut it down. So we swallow our agency and watch the “inevitable” from the sidelines while the terms of our lives get rewritten in real time. Soon the promise becomes total coverage. The system will take care of everything: science, health, government services, the economy, even social life. And the price will be simple. Sign away your power one click at a time, then call it progress. That’s how power consolidates. A public narrative trains people to treat change as fate. Competition puts institutions in a perpetual race forward. Fear does the rest. Once enough people believe the outcome is fixed, negotiation feels pointless. Whatever gets deployed becomes the new normal, and the new normal becomes unquestionable. The few closest to the machinery gain authority by default. They decide what gets built, where it gets used, and what counts as “acceptable.” The public becomes an afterthought, managed with messaging, while conversations about boundaries and terms fade into the background. We get locked out of the authorship of our own lives. Human First You can watch this play out in real institutions, in real time. A hospital is pitched an AI system to “reduce waiting,” “improve triage,” and support decisions. A school district adopts an “AI assistant” to lighten teacher load, grade faster, and support students. Government services bring AI in to speed up eligibility, inspections, and case review. And the same message shows up every time: adopt or fall behind. Then a patient gets flagged wrong. A child gets misclassified. Someone gets labeled suspicious without cause. A family loses benefits. A person gets denied help. A mistake lands, and harm appears. And when we ask who is accountable, nobody owns the harm. The answer dissolves into process, model output, and explanations, but never responsibility. A supervisor shrugs. A vendor cites “proprietary.” A lawyer points to the fine print. The harm stays, and ownership disappears. A supervisor shrugs. A vendor cites “proprietary.” A lawyer points to the fine print. The harm stays, and ownership disappears. At that point, governance has already failed, because the system has found its favorite escape hatch: “the model decided.” We need a correction beyond slogans and imagined utopias. We need a framework that is simple and actually works. Human First means we put humans back at the center of the human story, and force tools to live inside human purposes. It also means separating two conversations that keep getting mixed. One conversation is about function: survival, money, work, basic needs. That is the fear conversation. It is real, and it cannot be dismissed. The other conversation is about meaning: identity, expression, dignity. That is the human conversation that gets erased when everything is reduced to productivity and optimization. If we cannot speak clearly about both layers, the debate stays confused. One side argues efficiency, the other argues dignity, and nothing resolves because we are not naming the same harms. Human First reverses the reference frame. The default question stops being “How do we use AI?” and becomes: why are we doing this, for whom, and at what cost? why are we doing this, for whom, and at what cost? AI Is Fire AI behaves like a force inside human systems, not a normal tool you pick up and set down. It spreads fast. It scales fast. Once it’s embedded everywhere, it keeps shaping outcomes even when no single person is steering it. People like to compare AI to electricity, but that comparison hides the real risk. Electricity is usually governed as infrastructure. It has clear standards and ownership. You can inspect it. You can meter it. And when it fails, you know where responsibility sits. AI is being embedded into decisions about people: access, money, health, status, safety, and identity. When it fails, the harm spreads across lives, reputations, and institutions while nobody can be held to account. Responsibility often evaporates into “the model decided.” Like fire, we can’t just set it and forget it. We must start with safety first: containment, training, regular inspections, red lines, and real liability. You don’t try to “fix the nature” of fire. You accept the nature of fire and build guardrails around it. The same logic applies here. The system can grow in capability, it can be deployed at scale, it can surprise us. That is exactly why terms must come first. The Human First Framework If AI is fire, then Human First is the fire code. A fire code is not a philosophy. It’s a set of rules that make power usable without burning the house down. It assumes the force is real. It does not ask fire to be moral. It builds around the nature of fire. Human First is how humans stay in the picture. These are non-negotiable for any serious deployment, public or private. Simple enough to repeat, strong enough to enforce. Five pillars must be true at all times. Each one is a gate. If it fails, you do not deploy. If it breaks, you shut it down. 1) Purpose State the purpose as a clear human outcome, in a specific context, with a specific use. This is the first act of authorship. Without a defined purpose, the tool becomes the purpose. “We rolled it out because it can do everything” is not a purpose. “We rolled it out because everyone else is” is not a purpose. A purpose is a bounded human claim: what problem, for whom, in what setting, with what acceptable tradeoffs. Purpose also keeps the system from expanding by default. If the purpose is not explicit, the deployment spreads into areas nobody evaluated, and then people act surprised when trust collapses. 2) Access Limit access to the minimum needed to achieve the purpose. Data, systems, permissions, integrations. This is containment in practice. When access is broad, the tool is not being used. It is being installed as a general layer over everything. That is how “efficiency” quietly becomes surveillance, and convenience becomes leverage. Access discipline is also how you protect meaning. If identity and dignity are at stake, you do not treat the tool like a toy in the sandbox. You guard it like a force that can shape reputations, opportunities, and outcomes. 3) Boundaries Define the boundaries of the operational environment with hard gates and explicit criteria. This is where the temptation shows up: AI can do everything, therefore it should touch everything. But endless options are not empowerment. Endless options can freeze judgment, flatten creativity, and expand risk. Limitations give creativity because they focus energy and reduce chaos. Boundaries are where you decide what the tool is not allowed to do, what categories it cannot touch, what decisions require a human, what contexts are prohibited, what counts as unacceptable harm, and what signals trigger review. Boundaries also prevent the story from drifting into inevitability language. If boundaries exist, then the future is not “what happens.” It is what we permit. 4) Oversight Monitor for drift, misuse, and harm. Keep records of inputs, outputs, changes, and incidents. Oversight is an operating requirement. Tools change. Contexts change. People misuse systems. Incentives warp behavior. That is why oversight has to be ongoing, not a one-time signoff. This is also where legitimacy lives. If the public is affected, the public cannot be treated as irrelevant inputs. Oversight is how you detect when the system is producing quiet harm, and how you keep the conversation grounded in effects and incentives instead of debating intent. 5) Stop Plan for failure. Define shutdown criteria in advance. Maintain the ability to stop fast, roll back, and restore. The system must be stoppable, or it is not governed. If the response to harm is delay, committee language, and “we’ll look into it,” then the tool has already become the author. Stop is the refusal of surrender in operational form. It says: we will not keep a system running just because it exists, just because it is expensive, just because it is popular, or just because backing out would be embarrassing. A guarded deployment includes a hearth and an exit. If the house starts to fill with smoke, you do not negotiate with the smoke. No Surrender Surrender is often disguised as realism. “This is going to happen” can sound mature, but it quietly relocates authorship. Once we accept inevitability, we stop shaping our lives, and the terms of our existence get set by default. We must refuse inevitability as our default posture. Replace “this will happen” with “what terms would make this acceptable.” Replace “we must adapt” with “what is our role.” The future being sold to us is one where the story is already written and our job is to comply. “The model decided” is where authorship goes missing. It puts the system, and the people behind it, above the people it touches. “The model decided” is where authorship goes missing. It puts the system, and the people behind it, above the people it touches. We either choose to be the authors of our lives, or we live inside someone else’s draft.

Keep

The Fog: Living Inside an Attention Extraction Economy

The Weather-Report Lie: AI Isn’t Fate

About Author

Comments

TOPICS

THIS ARTICLE WAS FEATURED IN

Related Stories

Finding Authenticity Amidst The AI Mirage

A 22-Year-Old Just Taught A CEO A Very Public Lesson in Accountability

Implementing Blockchain for Good Governance. Is it Feasible?

Are you confused about accountability too?

Authentic Leadership and How Being on the Wrong Side Can Affect Your Organization

Blockchain to Ensure that Money is Well Spent

Finding Authenticity Amidst The AI Mirage

A 22-Year-Old Just Taught A CEO A Very Public Lesson in Accountability

Implementing Blockchain for Good Governance. Is it Feasible?

Are you confused about accountability too?

Authentic Leadership and How Being on the Wrong Side Can Affect Your Organization

Blockchain to Ensure that Money is Well Spent

Light-Mode

Classic

Newspaper

Minty

Dark-Mode

Neon Noir

Minty

HN StartUps