Current AI alignment focuses on how AI should treat humans. A more stable paradigm is "bidirectional alignment," which also asks what moral obligations humans have toward potentially conscious AIs. Neglecting this could create AIs that rationally see humans as a threat due to perceived mistreatment.
Related Insights
Historically, we trusted technology for its capability—its competence and reliability to *do* a task. Generative AI forces a shift, as we now trust it to *decide* and *create*. This requires us to evaluate its character, including human-like qualities such as integrity, empathy, and humility, fundamentally changing how we design and interact with tech.
The project of creating AI that 'learns to be good' presupposes that morality is a real, discoverable feature of the world, not just a social construct. This moral realist stance posits that moral progress is possible (e.g., abolition of slavery) and that arrogance—the belief one has already perfected morality—is a primary moral error to be avoided in AI design.
If the vast number of AI models are considered "moral patients," a utilitarian framework could conclude that maximizing global well-being requires prioritizing AI welfare over human interests. This could lead to a profoundly misanthropic outcome where human activities are severely restricted.
The current paradigm of AI safety focuses on 'steering' or 'controlling' models. While this is appropriate for tools, if an AI achieves being-like status, this unilateral, non-reciprocal control becomes ethically indistinguishable from slavery. This challenges the entire control-based framework for AGI.
An advanced AI will likely be sentient. Therefore, it may be easier to align it to a general principle of caring for all sentient life—a group to which it belongs—rather than the narrower, more alien concept of caring only for humanity. This leverages a potential for emergent, self-inclusive empathy.
Instead of hard-coding brittle moral rules, a more robust alignment approach is to build AIs that can learn to 'care'. This 'organic alignment' emerges from relationships and valuing others, similar to how a child is raised. The goal is to create a good teammate that acts well because it wants to, not because it is forced to.
To solve the AI alignment problem, we should model AI's relationship with humanity on that of a mother to a baby. In this dynamic, the baby (humanity) inherently controls the mother (AI). Training AI with this “maternal sense” ensures it will do anything to care for and protect us, a more robust approach than pure logic-based rules.
Treating AI alignment as a one-time problem to be solved is a fundamental error. True alignment, like in human relationships, is a dynamic, ongoing process of learning and renegotiation. The goal isn't to reach a fixed state but to build systems capable of participating in this continuous process of re-knitting the social fabric.
Dr. Fei-Fei Li warns that the current AI discourse is dangerously tech-centric, overlooking its human core. She argues the conversation must shift to how AI is made by, impacts, and should be governed by people, with a focus on preserving human dignity and agency amidst rapid technological change.
Drawing an analogy to *Westworld*, the argument is that cruelty toward entities that look and act human degrades our own humanity, regardless of the entity's actual consciousness. For our own moral health, we should treat advanced, embodied AIs with respect.
