I suggest adding it in the standard providers package. The PR (https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/52053) adds several core Airflow changes such as DB schema changes, REST API changes, and UI changes. This makes it such a native feature that IMO it belongs in the standard package.
Bas > On 25 Jun 2025, at 11:08, Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote: > > I am also fine with common.ai . That fits better than standard. > > > On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 11:02 AM Amogh Desai <amoghdesai....@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> I am convinced about using HITL too. >> >> I agree that this should probably be a separate package and should not be >> part of the standard >> one if possible due to plenty of reasons mentioned by Jens and others. >> >> "common.io" sounds to be a very interesting place to start, as this >> HITL operator might not be the only >> one we will implement in the long run. "human" operator sounds weird to me. >> >> Thanks & Regards, >> Amogh Desai >> >> >> On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 1:43 PM Kaxil Naik <kaxiln...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Thanks Wei. >>> >>> 1) "Human in the Loop": +1 on the naming. Standard names. HITL acronym is >>> also pretty standard (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human-in-the-loop | >>> https://cloud.google.com/discover/human-in-the-loop). "interactive" is a >>> loaded term and be pretty vague. >>> 2) re: Standard vs Separate Provider: Fine with either. But if it is in a >>> separate - the name "human" provider seems odd :) HITL as a functionality >>> makes sense but a "human" provider seems odd to me. If it is separate and >>> becomes part of "common.ai" - I am fine with that. I am equally happy >> with >>> keeping it in the Standard provider. Seems like a "core" functionality >>> compared to Control+M, and other legacy tools as well as new AI tools. >>> >>> On Tue, 24 Jun 2025 at 10:57, Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote: >>> >>>> I like HITL as an acronym as well - it's well recognized. >>>> >>>> Just to add a bit of stir this is an interesting article when someone >>> tried >>>> to also distinct: >>>> * HITL (Human In the Loop) >>>> * with HOTL (Human On the Loop) >>>> * and HATL (Human Above the Loop) >>>> * and HBTL (Human Behind the Loop) >>>> >>>> Interesting concepts worth understanding the different roles humans can >>>> play here - But that's more of an interesting side/related read :) . >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> https://medium.com/@pawel.rzeszucinski_55101/ai-humans-and-loops-04ee67ac820b >>>> >>>> :) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 4:35 AM Wei Lee <weilee...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi everyone, >>>>> >>>>> Thank you for joining this discussion! At this point, it seems we >> have >>>>> reached some consensus. >>>>> >>>>> For naming, we now agree to use human centric term. To embed the >> whole >>>>> idea into operators, I will use HITL (apologies for the previous >> typo) >>>> and >>>>> mention "Human in the Loop" in the documentation and docstrings. >>>>> >>>>> Regarding whether it should be a standalone feature or not, it seems >>> more >>>>> like while it wouldn’t hurt to add it to the standard, it might be >>> better >>>>> to keep it separate. I’d like to gather more opinions on this. If we >>>> don’t >>>>> have a strong opinion about adding it to the standard, I think we >>> should >>>>> consider separating it. In the meantime, I will use the same PR to >>>> develop >>>>> the major functionality in the standard provider for easier >> development >>>> and >>>>> move it to a separate one if we reach a clear consensus. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks! >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> Wei >>>>> >>>>>> On Jun 24, 2025, at 4:58 AM, Jens Scheffler >>> <j_scheff...@gmx.de.INVALID >>>>> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks Wei for taking the lead in starting to implement! Hope I can >>>>> review the next days. >>>>>> >>>>>> as I was writing the AIP together with Vikram I was and still am >> for >>>>> (=+1) to keep it "human" centric. Also adding an API such that >> somebody >>>>> else is able to roll their whatever UI and not being locked into >>> Airflow >>>> UI >>>>> but still with the aim to loop-in humans. >>>>>> >>>>>> For the provider question I am for a separate provider because (1) >> it >>>>> was as such in the AIP, (2) I see it is optional and we should not >>> force >>>>> every install to have this (as it has not been there the last 10 >> years >>> I >>>>> assume there are many installs not needing it actually and some >>>> objections >>>>> were raised in the discussion that it is accepted if it is an >> optional >>>>> feature which it would not be if in standard provider) as well as (3) >>> we >>>>> need to adjust the DB and slightly extend this for the human response >>>> data >>>>> storage - and I would feel uncomfortable to force this DB extension >>> with >>>>> every install... then we could also directly package this into core - >>> but >>>>> as (2) it should be an optional feature. >>>>>> >>>>>> As well as (4) other common things like http, ftp, git, sftp, smtp >>> are >>>>> also pretty like stdnard but are also separate providers. From point >> of >>>>> security (5) every additional thing adds a bit of complexity and if >> you >>>>> want to make your setup secure you want to slim it down to the >>> functions >>>>> you need. Even though minimal if no human interaction is needed then >> I >>>>> think we should not force every install to have this. >>>>>> >>>>>> TLDR I'd therefore favor (+1) a separate "human" provider; not >>> favoring >>>>> (but +0) adding this to standard. >>>>>> >>>>>> Jens >>>>>> >>>>>> On 23.06.25 08:02, Amogh Desai wrote: >>>>>>> I was not strongly against using "human" -- it just felt a little >>> odd >>>>> and >>>>>>> confusing to me at first. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Jarek's email has convinced me that having HITH is contextual in >> the >>>> AI >>>>>>> space and it is kinda what >>>>>>> we are doing with this AIP - 90. In fact, using "interactive" now >>>> seems >>>>> odd >>>>>>> that it is not descriptive enough >>>>>>> or doesn't highlight the intention of the operator enough. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I do not have concerns with whatever we decide to name it :D >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks & Regards, >>>>>>> Amogh Desai >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 23, 2025 at 9:42 AM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@airflow.apache.org >>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@airflow.apache.org >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@airflow.apache.org >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@airflow.apache.org >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>
