In standard Provider, yes Re: name: I changed my opinion. Previously I raised concerns about it, but they are gone. The name is IMHO perfect.
Why do I think "Human-In-The-Loop" is the **right** name. It's a very popular term in AI workflows, and used to interact with the "real" human, and it has a very concrete meaning. Also I think it's really, really worth looking at the talk by Andrey Karpathy published a few days ago https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCEmiRjPEtQ - I think it is very insightful. Andrey coined the term "Vibe Coding", and I think he is one of the smartest people in the AI space who is not hype-driven - i.e. he seems to genuinely think that AI is another technology change that is reinventing how we do software. Unlike many of others he is not "selling" their product in AI, he seems to be focused on one thing that I believe also is important i.e. "Keeping Human in the Loop". One of the very interesting things I've learned from that talk is how important it is to provide a good User Interface to AI. I.e. that the chat interface is cool, and everything but the crucial part of the AI interaction is to wrap the AI results into actionable, quick and "nice" way of interacting with various aspects of AI by Human(s), when the input is not only important, but crucial to get the real value of AI. In this context I think we should focus to make sure that our "Human In the Loop" is indeed designed for the Human - not for LLM imitating Human, not for Agents. It should have a nice, pleasant and efficient UI, that should allow surfacing all the information that is necessary for the Human to make the decision. That information should be nicely formattable, and you should be able to use the typical way that people interact with it - with controls and everything they are used to. A good interface example of a UI is when you use Copilot in your IDE for the translation. For example, the information you get (as human) is targeted for humans and is very actionable. It is put in context, you can interact with it individually by accepting individual suggestions (or rejecting them) or accept/reject things in bulk. Here is an example: (for those who do not see embedded picture - link here https://ibb.co/3Y03xN06) [image: Screenshot 2025-06-23 at 06.05.38.png] We should design "Human In the Loop" of ours in a very similar way - i.e. give the author of the "HIL" interaction capability of adding UI components, surfacing the right information - and having rich interaction. Maybe not all the bells and whistles initially (for example it's ok for now to just have bulk decisions on the whole interaction, but I think this should be our long-term design goal to allow for richer interactions. And - in this context - "Human in the loop" is a very appropriate name. BTW. Slightly related - there is a blog post coming about it from a few of us about AI with internationalisation and how we made it to follow that (pretty naturally) with Open-Source spirit - by making sure that we keep Human In the Loop and that it is designed to follow the Open Source Spirit, Foster collaboration. On Mon, Jun 23, 2025 at 4:42 AM Wei Lee <weilee...@gmail.com> wrote: > Got it! Yes, it makes sense to keep the phrase widely used. Thanks a lot! > As a compromise, I will try something like `HITHOperator`, which may > address some of the concerns. We can always rename it to whatever we decide > before the release. I will also send a follow-up email to this thread once > it's ready for review, so that anyone interested can take a look. > > Best, > Wei > > > On Jun 23, 2025, at 10:27 AM, Vikram Koka <vik...@astronomer.io.INVALID> > wrote: > > > > I agree with the standard provider approach. > > > > > > On Sun, Jun 22, 2025 at 7:26 PM Vikram Koka <vik...@astronomer.io> > wrote: > > > >> Thanks Wei, I really appreciate the work, and will review it as soon as > >> possible. > >> > >> With respect to the naming, I believe the Human-in-the-loop is the right > >> phrase, because that is recognized as such both in older "legacy" > systems, > >> as well as the new AI solutions. I agree that it may be less than ideal > >> from a technical perspective, but from a user perspective, I believe it > is > >> better to stick with a known term, rather than to invent our own. > >> > >> > >> > >> On Sun, Jun 22, 2025 at 7:07 PM Wei Lee <weilee...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>> Hi fellow Airflower, > >>> > >>> I am currently working on a PoC for AIP-90. I've incorporated some > >>> suggestions based on comments in the voting thread and Jira page. Since > >>> they have not yet been included in the AIP, I want to confirm with > everyone > >>> to ensure I'm on the right track. > >>> > >>> 1. Many have expressed concerns about the term “Human,” so I'm now > using > >>> the term “Interactive” as suggested by Among. For example, I change > >>> "HumanOperator" to “InteractiveOperator". > >>> 2. This functionality is now part of the standard provider rather than > >>> being a separate provider as suggested by Bas and Ash. > >>> > >>> Here is the PoC PR. https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/52053 > >>> It's not ready to be reviewed yet, but I'll try to wrap it up over the > >>> next few days. Several features are still missing and will be > implemented > >>> in the following pull requests. Thanks! > >>> > >>> Best regards, > >>> Wei Lee > >> > >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@airflow.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@airflow.apache.org > >
