Between Human and Machine: Rethinking Intelligence

Humans in the Loop: Rethinking AI Through Labour, Power, and Representation

This Blog is a part of Thinking Activity assigned by Dr. and Prof. Dilip Barad regarding Film Screening -Humans in the loop .

Here Is Infograph of My Blog-

Here Is Brief Video Overview of My Blog-

 

Slidedeck -

humans-in-the-loop-ai-labour-and-power-in-the-digital-age from Khushi Parmar

Task 1 : AI, Bias, and Epistemic Representation in Humans in the Loop

The film Humans in the Loop presents artificial intelligence not as a neutral or purely technical system, but as a deeply social, political, and ideological construct. Rather than portraying AI as an objective tool driven only by data and computation, the narrative reveals how technology is shaped by human values, institutional power, and cultural assumptions. Through its focus on algorithmic bias and labor practices, the film challenges the myth of technological neutrality and exposes how systems of knowledge production are embedded within structures of power. In doing so, it raises important questions about representation, ideology, and epistemic hierarchies in contemporary digital culture.

1. Algorithmic Bias as Culturally Situated, Not Technical

One of the film’s most significant interventions is its exposure of algorithmic bias as culturally constructed rather than simply technical error. AI systems are often marketed as objective, data-driven, and free from human prejudice. However, Humans in the Loop demonstrates that algorithms inherit the biases embedded in the data they are trained on and in the social systems that produce that data.

For example, the film shows how content moderation systems and image-recognition tools disproportionately misclassify certain communities, languages, or cultural expressions. These misclassifications are not random glitches; they reflect existing inequalities in whose data is prioritized, whose language is standardized, and whose experiences are considered “normal.” The film thus aligns with scholarly arguments such as Safiya Noble’s concept of algorithmic oppression, which explains how search engines and AI systems reproduce racial and gender hierarchies rather than simply reflecting reality.

From a film studies perspective, this relates to the concept of representation. Representation is never neutral—it constructs meaning through selection and framing. Similarly, AI systems “represent” the world through data selection, labeling practices, and statistical modeling. The film makes visible how these representational practices are ideological. By showing the human labor behind data labeling, the narrative dismantles the illusion that AI is autonomous. Instead, it reveals AI as a product of socially located decision-making.

Thus, algorithmic bias in the film is not framed as a coding mistake but as the outcome of cultural assumptions embedded within technological design. Technology, the film suggests, is not outside society; it is an extension of it.

2. Epistemic Hierarchies: Whose Knowledge Counts?

A central theme in Humans in the Loop is the existence of epistemic hierarchies—systems that determine whose knowledge is valued and whose is marginalized in technological infrastructures. The film highlights the invisible labor of data annotators, moderators, and content reviewers who train AI systems. These workers are often located in the Global South, working under precarious conditions, yet their cognitive labor is essential for AI functionality.

Despite their central role, their knowledge is rarely acknowledged as expertise. Instead, Silicon Valley engineers and corporate executives are positioned as the primary “creators” of AI. This division reflects what scholars call epistemic injustice—a condition where certain groups are systematically discredited as knowers.

From a theoretical standpoint, this can be connected to Michel Foucault’s concept of power/knowledge. Foucault argues that power and knowledge are inseparable; institutions determine what counts as legitimate knowledge. In the film, corporate AI systems function as such institutions. They define categories, set moderation rules, and establish standards of acceptability. The data workers who enforce and interpret these rules operate within structures they did not design and cannot control.

The narrative therefore exposes how AI systems are built upon hierarchical knowledge structures: Engineers and corporations design the frameworks. Annotators apply labels within those frameworks. End-users interact with outputs shaped by invisible decisions. The result is a technological system that centralizes authority while obscuring the distributed human labor that sustains it.

3. Ideology and the Myth of Technological Neutrality

Another important dimension of the film is its critique of the ideology of technological neutrality. AI is frequently presented in media discourse as inevitable progress—efficient, rational, and objective. Humans in the Loop challenges this ideology by foregrounding the emotional, psychological, and ethical costs of human involvement in AI training.

By focusing on workers who review traumatic or disturbing content, the film reveals the hidden human suffering that enables automated moderation. This disrupts the narrative of seamless automation. It also exposes the ideological framing of AI as “post-human” or independent from labor. In reality, AI depends on continuous human intervention.

In film studies terms, ideology operates by making certain power structures appear natural or invisible. The documentary form of Humans in the Loop counters this invisibility. Through interviews and observational footage, it renders visible what corporations attempt to hide—the messy, embodied labor behind supposedly clean algorithms.

This exposure destabilizes dominant tech narratives and encourages viewers to question who benefits from automation and who bears its costs.

4. Power Relations and Global Inequality

The film also situates AI within global economic power relations. The outsourcing of AI training work to economically vulnerable regions reflects a digital form of colonial labor extraction. While technology companies accumulate capital and prestige, data workers receive minimal recognition or protection.

This dynamic mirrors what postcolonial theorists describe as uneven development within global capitalism. The knowledge extracted from workers—through labeling, categorization, and interpretation—becomes proprietary corporate data. Yet the workers themselves remain structurally invisible.

By presenting these realities, the film reframes AI not as a futuristic abstraction but as part of a broader political economy. It demonstrates that technological systems reproduce global inequalities rather than transcending them.

5. Reframing the Human–AI Relationship

Ultimately, Humans in the Loop redefines the relationship between AI and human knowledge. Instead of viewing humans as peripheral supervisors of autonomous machines, the film shows that humans are central, continuous participants in AI processes. The “loop” is not temporary; it is foundational.

The title itself challenges the dominant narrative of full automation. It emphasizes that AI systems require ongoing human judgment. However, the film also questions whether these humans have agency or control within the system. While they contribute knowledge, they rarely influence design decisions or policy frameworks.

Thus, the relationship between AI and human knowledge is paradoxical:

Humans produce and sustain AI. AI systems obscure and devalue those human contributions. Power remains concentrated in corporate and institutional centers. This tension reveals that AI is not simply a tool but a site of ideological struggle over representation, authority, and legitimacy.

Conclusion

Humans in the Loop offers a powerful critique of the myth of technological neutrality. By exposing algorithmic bias as culturally situated and by highlighting epistemic hierarchies within AI production, the film demonstrates that technology is deeply embedded in systems of representation and power. Drawing on concepts from film studies—representation, ideology, and power/knowledge—the narrative reveals that AI systems do not merely process information; they reproduce social structures.

The film ultimately calls for greater accountability and recognition of the human labor behind artificial intelligence. It invites viewers to question whose knowledge is encoded into technological systems and whose voices remain unheard. In doing so, it reframes AI not as an autonomous intelligence but as a human, political, and cultural construct shaped by unequal power relations.

Humans in the Loop through Apparatus Theory

Apparatus Theory, developed by scholars such as Jean-Louis Baudry and Christian Metz, argues that cinema is not neutral. The film apparatus (camera, editing, projection, narrative structure, spectatorship position) shapes how viewers perceive reality. It subtly produces ideological meaning by positioning the audience in specific ways.

According to this theory:

The technology of cinema itself influences interpretation.

The spectator is positioned to accept certain meanings as natural.

Film mirrors and reinforces dominant power structures.

When we apply Apparatus Theory to Humans in the Loop, we can examine how the film not only talks about AI systems but also mirrors them through its own representational strategies.

TASK 2 — LABOR & THE POLITICS OF CINEMATIC VISIBILITY

Humans in the Loop critically interrogates the invisibility of digital labour under contemporary capitalism. While artificial intelligence is often framed as autonomous and immaterial, the film reveals the hidden human infrastructure sustaining algorithmic systems. Through its visual language and documentary form, the film transforms invisible labour into a visible, embodied, and emotionally charged experience. In doing so, it challenges dominant cultural valuations of work and invites viewers to rethink labour in the age of digital capitalism.

1. Visualizing Invisible Labour

Digital labour—particularly data labelling and content moderation—is structurally invisible. Users interact with smooth interfaces and automated outputs without awareness of the workers who classify images, tag content, or filter harmful material. The film disrupts this invisibility through deliberate cinematic choices.

a) The Visual Language of Repetition and Isolation

The film frequently frames workers in tight shots, often isolated within dimly lit rooms. The glow of computer screens dominates the mise-en-scène, visually suggesting how digital interfaces structure their world. This aesthetic produces several meanings:

Labour appears repetitive and mechanical. Workers seem physically static but mentally strained. The screen becomes both tool and barrier.

Through long takes and minimal movement, the documentary mirrors the monotony of labelling work. The audience experiences duration and stillness, reinforcing the sense of routine and emotional fatigue.

b) The Emotional Experience of Labour

Rather than focusing solely on technical processes, the film foregrounds the psychological toll of content moderation. Workers describe exposure to disturbing material, ethical dilemmas, and cognitive stress. Close-up shots capture facial expressions—fatigue, hesitation, discomfort—thereby rehumanizing what is often described as “micro-tasking.”

In film studies terms, the use of close-ups disrupts abstraction. It personalizes labour that is typically reduced to data points. The camera refuses to treat workers as invisible extensions of machines; instead, it positions them as subjects with emotional depth.

2. Labour under Digital Capitalism

The film situates this work within broader structures of digital capitalism—an economic system where data becomes a primary commodity. AI companies profit from automation narratives, yet the automation itself depends on low-paid, outsourced human labour.

This reflects what scholars call the hidden supply chain of AI. Workers often operate in: Precarious employment conditions Outsourced global markets Limited recognition or authorship The contradiction is central: AI is marketed as cutting-edge innovation, yet its foundation is routine, undervalued labour.

From a Marxist perspective, this reveals a new form of exploitation. Labour produces value (trained datasets, refined algorithms), but workers rarely share in that value. Their cognitive and emotional contributions become absorbed into corporate capital.

3. Cultural Valuation of Marginalised Work

The invisibility of labelling work reflects broader cultural hierarchies. In many societies, intellectual design work (engineering, programming) is celebrated, while repetitive classification work is considered low-skilled—even though it requires interpretive judgment.

The film challenges this hierarchy by demonstrating that: Labelling requires contextual understanding. Content moderation demands ethical decision-making. Workers constantly negotiate ambiguous boundaries. Yet this knowledge is not institutionally recognized. Engineers design categories; workers implement them. The authority to define systems remains concentrated at the top.

This suggests that cultural valuation under digital capitalism privileges innovation narratives over maintenance labour. Work that sustains systems is rendered secondary to work that invents them.

4. Politics of Cinematic Visibility

By making labour visible, the film engages in what can be called a politics of visibility. In film theory, visibility is power. To be seen is to be acknowledged as socially significant.

The documentary format plays a crucial role here: Direct interviews grant workers narrative authority. Observational footage emphasizes routine embodiment. The absence of sensational music or dramatic editing avoids exploitation.

The film does not aestheticize suffering; instead, it presents labour in its ordinary intensity. This ethical restraint invites reflection rather than spectacle.

5. Empathy, Critique, or Transformation?

The film accomplishes three interconnected effects:

a) Empathy

Through intimate framing and personal testimony, the audience is encouraged to empathize with workers. We see their faces, hear their voices, and understand their emotional strain. This humanization counters the abstraction of AI discourse.

b) Critique

At the same time, the film critiques the economic system that relies on invisible labour. It questions the rhetoric of full automation and exposes structural inequality within global tech industries.

c) Transformation

Most importantly, the film prompts viewers to reconsider their own relationship to technology. Every automated recommendation, filtered image, or moderated post becomes recontextualized as the result of human effort. This shift in perception can transform how labour is valued and discussed.

The documentary thus moves beyond simple awareness. It encourages a rethinking of digital infrastructure and its ethical implications.

6. Conclusion

Humans in the Loop powerfully visualizes invisible labour and reveals the contradictions of digital capitalism. Through its visual language—close-ups, repetitive framing, and quiet observation—it renders labelling work embodied and emotionally complex. The film challenges cultural hierarchies that devalue marginalised labour while celebrating technological innovation. By inviting empathy and critique simultaneously, the documentary repositions digital workers from invisible functionaries to central participants in technological production. Ultimately, it argues that AI is not autonomous; it is sustained by human labour that remains systematically undervalued.

The politics of cinematic visibility in the film therefore becomes an act of resistance. To show the workers is to challenge the ideology of automation—and to insist that human knowledge, effort, and emotion remain at the core of digital systems.

Theoretical Lens: Marxist & Cultural Film Theory, Representation and Identity Studies

To critically analyze Humans in the Loop, Marxist and Cultural Film Theory, along with Representation and Identity Studies, provide powerful interpretive frameworks. These approaches help us understand how the film portrays labour, class relations, commodification, and identity within digital capitalism.

1. Marxist & Cultural Film Theory

Marxist Film Theory, rooted in the ideas of Karl Marx, examines how films represent labour, class struggle, and capitalist exploitation. Under capitalism, labour produces value, but workers do not fully control or benefit from the wealth they generate. Instead, their labour becomes commodified—treated as something that can be bought, sold, and extracted for profit. In Humans in the Loop, AI appears as advanced automation, but the film reveals that it depends heavily on human labour: Data annotators label images and text. Content moderators filter disturbing material. Workers perform repetitive micro-tasks that train algorithms. From a Marxist perspective, this is a form of digital labour exploitation. The value generated by AI systems (efficiency, corporate profit, innovation prestige) is built on the underpaid and invisible labour of workers. Their time, cognition, and even emotional resilience become commodities.

The film’s slow pacing and repetitive imagery emphasize this commodified time. Labour is fragmented into small, measurable tasks—reflecting what Marx describes as alienation. Workers are disconnected from the final product of their labour. They do not see the full AI system they help build; they only perform isolated functions.

2. Representation and Identity Studies

Representation and Identity Studies, influenced by scholars like Stuart Hall, emphasize that representation shapes social meaning. Media constructs identities by deciding who is visible and how they are portrayed.

In mainstream tech discourse: Engineers are represented as innovators. Corporations are framed as visionaries. AI appears autonomous. Data workers, however, are often invisible. Humans in the Loop disrupts this by centering marginalized identities—workers whose gender, nationality, and socioeconomic background position them outside elite technological spaces. The film visually places them at the center of the frame, giving them voice and narrative authority.

This challenges assumptions about who contributes to technological systems. AI is not created solely by elite programmers; it is collectively produced by diverse and often marginalized workers.

TASK 3 — FILM FORM, STRUCTURE & DIGITAL CULTURE

Humans in the Loop uses film form not merely as a stylistic tool but as a philosophical argument about digital culture and human–AI interaction. Through camera techniques, editing patterns, spatial contrasts, and sound design, the film constructs a sensory experience of life inside algorithmic systems. Rather than presenting AI as abstract intelligence, the documentary renders it embodied, material, and socially embedded. Its aesthetic strategies highlight alienation, commodification, identity, and the tension between human experience and digital abstraction.

1. Natural Imagery vs Digital Spaces: Thematic Dialectics

One of the most striking formal devices in the film is the visual contrast between natural environments and enclosed digital spaces.

A. Openness vs Confinement

Natural imagery—sunlight, greenery, open air—communicates movement, organic life, and material reality. These scenes often feel spacious and breathable. In contrast, digital workspaces are framed as enclosed, dimly lit, and dominated by artificial light from screens.

This visual opposition functions philosophically:

Nature represents embodied, lived human experience.

Digital space represents abstraction, categorization, and algorithmic containment.

The interplay suggests that digital culture restructures how humans inhabit space and time. Workers may physically exist in real-world environments, but cognitively and economically, they operate inside digital systems.

From a Marxist perspective, this contrast emphasizes alienation. Labour in digital capitalism is detached from tangible production. Instead of producing physical goods, workers produce classifications, tags, and datasets—forms of immaterial value.

2. Camera Techniques: Embodying the Digital Condition

A. Close-Ups and Humanization

The film frequently uses close-ups of faces illuminated by screens. The glow creates a symbolic merging of human and machine. The screen lights the worker’s face, visually suggesting that human perception fuels artificial intelligence.

However, the close-up also reasserts human subjectivity. We see fatigue, hesitation, and emotional response. These images counter the myth that AI is purely automated. The camera insists: behind every algorithmic output is a human gaze.

This aesthetic choice shapes the viewer’s experience by:

Encouraging intimacy rather than detachment.

Making labour emotional rather than abstract.

Transforming “data work” into visible human effort.

B. Static Framing and Stillness

Many sequences are shot with minimal camera movement. The stillness mirrors the repetitive, sedentary nature of digital labour. Unlike dynamic corporate tech advertisements filled with movement and speed, this documentary slows time.

The pacing makes viewers feel duration—the passage of commodified time. Under digital capitalism, labour is measured in clicks, seconds, and productivity metrics. By prolonging shots, the film emphasizes the weight of time experienced by workers.

This aesthetic decision communicates a philosophical concern: efficiency and automation narratives conceal the lived temporality of human work.

3. Editing and Structural Sequencing

A. Repetition and Fragmentation

Editing patterns often show repetitive gestures: clicking, scrolling, tagging. These micro-actions are shown in succession, reinforcing fragmentation.

Workers do not see the complete AI system; they see isolated tasks. The film’s structure mirrors this fragmentation. Instead of a linear technological narrative, we witness disconnected processes.

This formal fragmentation reflects how digital labour is compartmentalized and commodified. It also symbolizes how AI systems divide reality into discrete, classifiable units.

B. Juxtaposition as Critique

The film occasionally contrasts optimistic narratives about AI innovation with the mundane reality of labelling work. This juxtaposition produces ideological tension.

The sleek promise of automation is visually undermined by repetitive manual tasks. Editing thus becomes a critical tool. It reveals contradiction between corporate discourse and lived experience.

4. Sound Design and Digital Atmosphere

Sound in Humans in the Loop is restrained and minimal:

Keyboard tapping

Mouse clicks

Low electronic hum

Moments of silence

The absence of dramatic music avoids spectacle. Instead, mechanical sounds immerse the viewer in digital atmosphere. The repetitive auditory environment reinforces monotony.

Silence during interviews intensifies emotional testimony. Without background music to guide interpretation, viewers must confront the workers’ voices directly.

Sound thus shapes perception:

It emphasizes routine rather than excitement.

It foregrounds human vulnerability.

It resists the glamorization of technology.

5. Aesthetic Choices and the Experience of Labour

The film’s aesthetics fundamentally alter how labour is perceived.

A. From Abstraction to Embodiment

In mainstream discourse, AI labour is invisible. Here, labour becomes embodied:

Faces replace algorithms.

Rooms replace data centers.

Emotional reactions replace technical diagrams.

This transformation challenges the viewer’s assumptions. AI is not an independent entity—it is sustained by human cognition and emotion.

B. Identity and Technological Contribution

The aesthetic focus on domestic and local settings highlights identity. Workers are not faceless global laborers; they are individuals shaped by socioeconomic context.

By situating labour within personal spaces—homes, modest offices—the film connects identity and work. This challenges dominant narratives that attribute technological progress exclusively to elite, Western engineers.

Cinematically, this repositioning reshapes viewer perception. Marginalized identities become central technological subjects rather than peripheral support.

6. Philosophical Concerns about Human–AI Interaction

Through its form, the film raises key philosophical questions:

Where does human cognition end and machine learning begin?

Is AI autonomous, or does it mask hidden labour?

What happens to identity when human judgment is reduced to micro-tasks?

The merging of human faces with screen light visually blurs boundaries between human and machine. Yet the emotional testimonies reassert difference: machines do not feel exhaustion, distress, or moral conflict—humans do.

Thus, the film argues that AI is not a replacement for human intelligence but a system built upon it.

Conclusion

Through its deliberate use of camera techniques, editing rhythms, sequencing, and sound design, Humans in the Loop transforms film form into philosophical inquiry. The contrast between natural imagery and digital confinement communicates themes of alienation and abstraction. Close-ups humanize workers, static shots emphasize commodified time, and restrained sound design immerses viewers in the sensory experience of digital labour.

The aesthetic choices reshape how viewers understand labour, identity, and technology. Rather than celebrating automation, the film reveals AI as socially produced and ethically complex. In doing so, it challenges the myth of technological neutrality and reframes digital culture as deeply dependent on human experience.

Theoretical Lens: Structuralism, Film Semiotics & Formalist Narrative Theory

To deepen the analysis of Humans in the Loop, Structuralism and Film Semiotics allow us to examine how the film operates as a system of signs, while Formalist and Narrative Theory help us understand how cinematic techniques themselves generate meaning. Rather than focusing only on content, these approaches analyze how meaning is constructed through structure, codes, and form.

1. Structuralism & Film Semiotics

A. Film as a System of Signs

Structuralism, influenced by Ferdinand de Saussure, argues that meaning emerges through systems of signs. A sign consists of:

Signifier (the image, sound, or visual element)

Signified (the concept or meaning it represents)

In Humans in the Loop, digital interfaces, screens, and repetitive gestures function as signifiers that communicate broader cultural meanings about automation, control, and abstraction.

For example:

The glowing computer screen signifies technological power but also confinement.

Repetitive clicking signifies efficiency but also monotony.

Close-ups of tired eyes signify cognitive labour and emotional strain.

Through these recurring visual codes, the film constructs AI not as autonomous intelligence but as dependent on human perception.

B. Binary Oppositions

Structuralist analysis often focuses on binary oppositions—contrasting pairs that structure meaning.

In the film, several binaries shape interpretation:

Human / Machine

Natural / Digital

Visibility / Invisibility

Innovation / Exploitation

Autonomy / Dependence

These oppositions are not presented as equal. The film destabilizes the dominant narrative (machine autonomy, innovation, efficiency) by revealing its dependence on hidden human labour.

The contrast between natural outdoor imagery and enclosed digital spaces becomes a structural code. Nature symbolizes organic life and material reality, while digital interiors signify abstraction and systemization. Meaning arises from their contrast.

C. Codes of Digital Culture

Film Semiotics also examines cultural codes—shared systems of meaning that audiences recognize.

The film uses recognizable digital culture codes:

The interface layout

Scrolling screens

Data tagging

Notification sounds

These signs are familiar to contemporary viewers. However, by slowing down and isolating these elements, the film defamiliarizes them. What normally feels seamless is revealed as labor-intensive.

Thus, the film restructures our interpretation of everyday digital signs.

2. Formalist & Narrative Theory

A. Meaning Through Form

Formalist theory argues that meaning in cinema emerges from formal elements—camera angles, lighting, editing, sound, and narrative structure—rather than from subject matter alone.

In Humans in the Loop, form conveys philosophy:

Static camera shots → emphasize monotony and stillness

Long takes → create temporal weight

Minimal music → foreground realism

Dim lighting → symbolize confinement within digital systems

These choices are not neutral; they shape how viewers emotionally and intellectually experience the subject.

B. Narrative Structure

The film avoids a traditional dramatic arc. Instead of a problem-resolution narrative, it presents a process-oriented structure.

This narrative choice mirrors digital labour itself:

Fragmented

Repetitive

Continuous rather than climactic

The absence of dramatic tension reflects the ongoing nature of algorithmic systems. AI training is not a single event but a continuous loop—matching the film’s structural rhythm.

Conclusion

Using Structuralism and Film Semiotics, Humans in the Loop can be understood as a network of signs that expose digital culture’s hidden structures. Through binary oppositions and visual codes, the film destabilizes dominant narratives of AI autonomy.

Through Formalist and Narrative Theory, we see how cinematic techniques—lighting, editing, pacing, and sequencing—generate meaning beyond dialogue. The film’s restrained style mirrors the repetitive, invisible nature of digital labour.

Ultimately, the film does not merely discuss AI; it structurally embodies its philosophical concerns. Meaning emerges not only from what is shown, but from how it is shown.

References 

Barad, D. (2026). WORKSHEET FILM SCREENING ARANYA SAHAY’S HUMANS IN THE LOOP. WORKSHEET FILM SCREENING ARANYA SAHAY’S HUMANS IN THE LOOP. https://doi.org/10.13140/rg.2.2.11775.06568

https://scroll.in/reel/1086161/humans-in-the-loop-review-a-thoughtful-look-at-new-ai-tech-and-age-old-fault-lines