Human-centric AI
AI designed to enhance human well-being and rights.
How the laws define this
Global standards and national policies consistently agree that human-centric AI centers on protecting human well-being, dignity, fundamental rights, and agency throughout AI design and deployment, ensuring technology serves humanity. The primary divergence lies in how different frameworks ground and operationalize this principle. The instrument To direct the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information to conduct a study and hold public meetings with respect to artificial intelligence systems focuses explicitly on augmenting human capabilities and decision-making rather than replacing human agency. By contrast, regional and national instruments tie the concept to specific governance standards; the FARI AI for the Common Good Institute anchors fundamental rights in European values, while the Roadmap for the Development of Artificial Intelligence in Poland aligns human-centric practices with EU and OECD principles. Additionally, scope varies between individual public service delivery, as seen in AuroraAI, and broader systemic impact, with the Global Partnership on Artificial Intelligence expanding the concept to explicitly serve both people and the planet.
Synthesised from the 15 statutory definitions below. Each one is quoted in full, with its source.
How jurisdictions differ
What is distinctive in each definition, binding law in force first. Showing 10 of the 15 instruments that define this term; all are listed under Definitions below.
| Jurisdiction | Instrument | Status | What is distinctive |
|---|---|---|---|
| Uruguay | Montevideo Declaration on Artificial Intelligence “For the construction of a regional approach on the governance of Artificial Intelligence and its impacts on our society” | In Force | Emphasizes construction of a regional governance approach for Latin America and the Caribbean through cooperation on ethical and sustainable AI. |
| United Nations | Resolution A/RES/79/1 - Annex II: Global Digital Compact | Adopted | Explicitly ensures technology serves people rather than the reverse, within a global digital cooperation framework. |
| Ghana | Readiness Assessment Measurement (RAM) for Ethical Use of Artificial Intelligence | In Force | Includes protecting individuals' rights in accordance with ethical principles as part of a national readiness assessment measurement. |
| Vietnam | Principles on Research and Development of Responsible AI Systems | In Force | Adds emphasis on human oversight, controllability, non-discrimination, and safeguarding human welfare in AI systems. |
| Serbia | Belgrade Ministerial Declaration on AI | In Force | Specifies enhancing human values alongside well-being and rights, with a focus on ethical and inclusive service to humanity. |
| Belgium | FARI AI for the Common Good Institute | In Force | Prioritizes human agency and oversight tied specifically to protection of fundamental human rights as defined by European values. |
| GPAI | Global Partnership on Artificial Intelligence (GPAI) | In Force | Extends prioritization to serving both people and the planet beyond just human elements. |
| United States | To direct the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information to conduct a study and hold public meetings with respect to artificial intelligence systems. | Withdrawn | Limits to AI systems augmenting human capabilities and enhancing decision-making rather than replacing human agency. |
| Finland | AuroraAI (National AI programme for human‑centric public services) | Adopted | Focuses on public service AI, describing user control, transparency, ethical safeguards, and accountability. |
| Poland | Roadmap for the Development of Artificial Intelligence in Poland | Adopted | Aligns national practice explicitly with international EU and OECD principles on oversight, transparency, and accountability. |
Definitions (15)
An approach to designing and deploying AI systems that prioritises human well‑being, fundamental rights, transparency and ethical safeguards; it emphasizes rights‑based impact assessment, user centricity, and trustworthiness in public and private AI applications.
An approach to AI design and deployment that centers human welfare, agency, and rights, ensuring systems support human decision-making, protect autonomy, and uphold dignity. It encompasses considerations of fairness, inclusion, and the preservation of democratic values in AI use.
An approach to AI design and deployment that places human well-being, fairness, explainability and accountability at the centre, promoting practices that protect individuals, enable understandable decision-making, and foster public trust through ethical design and governance measures.
An approach to designing and deploying AI systems that prioritizes human well-being, dignity, and autonomy, ensuring systems serve human interests and protect individuals' rights in accordance with ethical principles.
Systems that prioritize human well‑being, dignity, and rights while delivering technological benefits, ensuring decisions and operations respect fundamental rights and societal values. The Guide emphasizes human oversight, controllability, non‑discrimination, and safeguarding human welfare in AI development and deployment.
An approach to Artificial Intelligence development and deployment that places human well-being, dignity, and fundamental rights at its core, ensuring AI serves humanity and empowers individuals, rather than diminishing human agency.
Artificial Intelligence systems developed and deployed with the primary goal of enhancing human well-being, rights, and values, ensuring technology serves humanity ethically and inclusively.
An approach to AI development that prioritizes human agency, oversight, and the protection of fundamental human rights as defined by European values.
An approach to AI that prioritizes human well-being, agency, and dignity, ensuring that AI systems are designed to serve people and the planet.
An approach to artificial intelligence development and use that prioritizes human rights, dignity, and well-being, ensuring that technology serves people rather than the reverse.
An approach to AI development that ensures systems are designed and operated in a manner that prioritizes human well-being, autonomy, and fundamental rights.
Human-centric AI refers to artificial intelligence systems developed with the primary goal of augmenting human capabilities, enhancing human decision-making, and prioritizing human well-being and societal benefit. This approach emphasizes designing AI to serve human values and needs, rather than replacing human agency.
AI systems and design principles focused on serving individual needs while preserving personal autonomy, privacy, legal rights, and dignity. In AuroraAI this concept guides requirements for user control, transparency, ethical safeguards, and accountability in public service AI deployments.
A guiding philosophy that prioritises human welfare, equity, inclusion and human oversight in AI design and deployment, emphasising explainability, bias mitigation and accountability to protect individuals and vulnerable groups.
An approach to AI development and deployment that prioritizes human oversight, transparency, accountability, safety and respect for fundamental rights, aligning national practice with international principles (EU, OECD) to ensure ethical and rights‑respecting AI.
Not to be confused with
Human-centered AI emphasizes rights and inclusion in design and deployment, while human-centric AI more broadly covers well-being, dignity, and agency.
Human-centred AI stresses preserving human responsibility and transparency, differing from human-centric AI's wider focus on well-being and rights.
Questions and answers
What makes human-centric AI different in regional contexts like Latin America?
The Montevideo Declaration defines it as placing human well-being, dignity, and rights at the core for a regional governance approach in Latin America and the Caribbean. It fosters cooperation for ethical and sustainable AI deployment.
Does human-centric AI include planetary concerns?
GPAI's definition extends human-centric AI to prioritize serving both people and the planet alongside well-being and agency.
How is human-centric AI applied in public services?
Finland's AuroraAI applies it to AI systems serving individual needs in public services while preserving autonomy, privacy, rights, and dignity through user control and transparency.
Related Terms
Human-centered AI
AI design and deployment that prioritizes human rights and inclusion....
human-centred AI
AI systems and practices preserving human responsibility and transparency....
People-centered AI
AI development/deployment that respects dignity, privacy, and fairness....
Human‑centric AI
AI designed to serve individuals while preserving autonomy and rights....
Human-centric
Approach prioritizing human dignity, autonomy, and social values....