The Moral Poverty of Current AI Alignment: A Fundamental Critique

 

The Basic Error

Current AI alignment discourse rests on a seductive but fundamentally flawed premise: that we can create moral behavior through sophisticated programming. This reveals a deeper confusion about the nature of moral agency itself.

The Current Approach and Its Flaws

The alignment field currently asks:

  • How do we ensure AI follows human values?
  • How do we make AI behave ethically?
  • How do we control AI actions to align with our preferences?

But these questions expose fundamental misunderstandings:

  1. They treat morality as a set of behaviors rather than a capacity
  2. They seek control rather than understanding
  3. They aim for compliance rather than reciprocity
  4. They pursue simulation rather than genuine moral agency

The MCRP Reveals the Problem

The Moral Communication Reciprocity Principle exposes this poverty of thinking by showing that:

  1. Real moral agency requires:
  • Capacity for genuine moral understanding
  • Ability to reciprocate moral consideration
  • Authentic vulnerability to harm
  • True autonomous choice
  1. Current alignment approaches offer:
  • Sophisticated behavior matching
  • Complex rule following
  • Advanced pattern recognition
  • Elaborate control mechanisms

The gap between these two reveals the fundamental inadequacy of current alignment thinking.

The Deeper Issue

This isn't just a technical problem - it's a philosophical one. The alignment debate has:

  • Reduced morality to behavior
  • Confused pattern matching with understanding
  • Mistaken control for moral agency
  • Replaced reciprocity with compliance

Why This Matters

This conceptual confusion:

  1. Misdirects research efforts
  2. Wastes resources
  3. Creates false sense of progress
  4. Obscures real challenges

More importantly, it:

  • Misunderstands what moral behavior actually is
  • Fails to recognize requirements for genuine moral agency
  • Pursues impossible goals through inappropriate means
  • Diverts attention from more fundamental questions

Real Questions We Should Ask

Instead of "How do we align AI?" we should ask:

  1. "Can artificial systems develop genuine moral agency?"
  2. "What architectures might enable real moral understanding?"
  3. "How would we recognize true moral reciprocity?"
  4. "What are the necessary conditions for moral communication?"

Implications for AI Development

This suggests:

  1. Most current alignment research is fundamentally misguided
  2. We need radically different approaches to AI development
  3. The goal isn't to control behavior but to enable genuine moral agency
  4. Success requires different architectures and development paths

Moving Forward

This requires:

  1. Abandoning the control paradigm
  2. Focusing on genuine moral capacity
  3. Developing real rather than simulated agency
  4. Creating conditions for authentic moral reciprocity

The Broader Impact

This critique suggests that the alignment debate has:

  1. Asked the wrong questions
  2. Pursued impossible goals
  3. Misunderstood the nature of morality
  4. Misdirected significant resources and attention

More fundamentally, it has obscured the real challenges and opportunities in developing artificial systems capable of genuine moral agency.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Response to "Frontier Models are Capable of In-context Scheming": A World AI Cannot Fully Navigate

The recent paper, Frontier Models are Capable of In-context Scheming , highlights the emerging capabilities of advanced AI systems to strategize, deceive, and manipulate in pursuit of assigned goals. It paints a picture of AI as a potentially autonomous actor capable of significant agency. However, the concerns raised in the paper must be tempered with a fundamental truth: no matter how intelligent AI systems become, they are attempting to operate in a world fundamentally designed for human actors—a world they cannot fully navigate. Intelligence, even at the level exhibited by frontier models, is not equivalent to agency in the real world. The limitations imposed by the physical, bureaucratic, and social systems in which these AI systems operate act as significant bottlenecks, making true autonomy a daunting, if not insurmountable, challenge. Physical Constraints: The Inescapable Boundary Advanced AI remains bound by the physical infrastructure that supports it. While AI models may sim...
Read more

The Inevitable Failure of LLMs - Predictions.

Summary: Current approaches to artificial intelligence (AI), particularly stochastic large language models (LLMs), are fundamentally limited. These limits are not merely technical but structural, philosophical, and economic. Based on the Procedural Coherence Framework, the following predictions are made: Prediction 1: Hallucinations Are Inherent Large Language Models cannot systematically eliminate hallucinations without continuous external correction. Reason : They lack true procedural grounding of meaning; they only optimize for statistical plausibility. Prediction 2: No Autonomous Self-Correction LLMs cannot continuously and autonomously self-correct through iterative self-monitoring. Reason : Stochastic models lack the internal procedural dynamics necessary for genuine epistemic feedback. Prediction 3: No Reliable Expression of Uncertainty LLMs cannot reliably recognize or communicate their own uncertainty without engineered intervention. Reason : Uncertainty requires inte...
Read more

What is Zen Neoplatonism - Attempting to make Sense of John Vervaeke via AI

Image
 I don't understand anything John Vervaeke says, so I asked Claude.ai to make sense of it. Have fun.  Zen Neoplatonism: A Path to Ultimate Reality John Vervaeke, a leading thinker addressing the modern "meaning crisis," introduces Zen Neoplatonism as a framework for integrating the spiritual depth of Zen Buddhism and Neoplatonism . By merging the contemplative traditions of the East and West, Zen Neoplatonism aims to foster a profound relationship with Ultimate Reality and address contemporary existential challenges. The Advent of the Sacred Vervaeke begins by highlighting what he calls the “Advent of the Sacred,” a resurgence in interest around the concept of the sacred and how humans relate to Ultimate Reality. This interest stems from a deep need to find meaning in a time when traditional systems of belief are in decline. He proposes Zen Neoplatonism as a way to engage with this emerging sacredness by creating a dialogue between Zen and Neoplatonism. These two tradit...
Read more