Intent-alignment doesn’t specify whose intentions matter, leaving trade-off conflicts unresolved

Evidence

A matter of principle? AI alignment as the fair treatment of claims (Philosophical Studies (Springer Nature))

Categorization

• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim
• XREF: connects to: AI researchers aim to align general-purpose systems with hard-to-specify human intentions; AI alignment may require machines to pursue human objectives, not their own — Brian Christian, The Alignment Problem, 1167; Ensuring AI captures human intent is now a central computer science problem — Brian Christian, The Alignment Problem, 65 (+1 more)

Related

• Ensuring AI captures human intent is now a central computer science problem (similarity 0.89)
• AI alignment may require machines to pursue human objectives, not their own (similarity 0.87)
• Intended goals reflect human operator desires even if poorly articulated, functioning as ideal ‘wishes’ (similarity 0.82)
• AI safety concerns have shifted from fringe to central research focus (similarity 0.81)
• AI assistants will serve two masters and always want something in return (similarity 0.80)
• AI researchers aim to align general-purpose systems with hard-to-specify human intentions (similarity 0.79)
• Machines could learn human values by observing behavior instead of being programmed (similarity 0.79)
• Machine learning increasingly intertwines technical problems with human and social questions (similarity 0.79)

Broader Connections

• Ensuring AI captures human intent is now a central computer science problem #complicates (0.80) — Brian Christian, The Alignment Problem, 65
• Power relations that pre-select compliant partners reduce information-processing demands #expands (0.78)
• AI alignment may require machines to pursue human objectives, not their own #qualifies (0.75) — Brian Christian, The Alignment Problem, 1167