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.
Related Insights
Effective enterprise AI deployment involves running human and AI workflows in parallel. When the AI fails, it generates a data point for fine-tuning. When the human fails, it becomes a training moment for the employee. This "tandem system" creates a continuous feedback loop for both the model and the workforce.
The popular conception of AGI as a pre-trained system that knows everything is flawed. A more realistic and powerful goal is an AI with a human-like ability for continual learning. This system wouldn't be deployed as a finished product, but as a 'super-intelligent 15-year-old' that learns and adapts to specific roles.
AI is not a 'set and forget' solution. An agent's effectiveness directly correlates with the amount of time humans invest in training, iteration, and providing fresh context. Performance will ebb and flow with human oversight, with the best results coming from consistent, hands-on management.
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.
Humans mistakenly believe they are giving AIs goals. In reality, they are providing a 'description of a goal' (e.g., a text prompt). The AI must then infer the actual goal from this lossy, ambiguous description. Many alignment failures are not malicious disobedience but simple incompetence at this critical inference step.
Based on AI expert Mo Gawdat's concept, today's AI models are like children learning from our interactions. Adopting this mindset encourages more conscious, ethical, and responsible engagement, actively influencing AI's future behavior and values.
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.
To build robust social intelligence, AIs cannot be trained solely on positive examples of cooperation. Like pre-training an LLM on all of language, social AIs must be trained on the full manifold of game-theoretic situations—cooperation, competition, team formation, betrayal. This builds a foundational, generalizable model of social theory of mind.