Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper reframes AI value alignment as a structural governance problem, moving beyond purely technical or normative perspectives. It introduces a three-axis framework鈥攐bjectives, information, and principals鈥攖o diagnose misalignment in real-world AI systems. The analysis reveals that alignment is pluralistic, context-dependent, and requires ongoing institutional processes to manage trade-offs among competing values and stakeholder interests.
Forget about perfectly aligned AI; the real challenge is navigating whose values count, how information is shared, and what trade-offs are acceptable in a world of competing interests.
The value alignment problem for artificial intelligence (AI) is often framed as a purely technical or normative challenge, sometimes focused on hypothetical future systems. I argue that the problem is better understood as a structural question about governance: not whether an AI system is aligned in the abstract, but whether it is aligned enough, for whom, and at what cost. Drawing on the principal-agent framework from economics, this paper reconceptualises misalignment as arising along three interacting axes: objectives, information, and principals. The three-axis framework provides a systematic way of diagnosing why misalignment arises in real-world systems and clarifies that alignment cannot be treated as a single technical property of models but an outcome shaped by how objectives are specified, how information is distributed, and whose interests count in practice. The core contribution of this paper is to show that the three-axis decomposition implies that alignment is fundamentally a problem of governance rather than engineering alone. From this perspective, alignment is inherently pluralistic and context-dependent, and resolving misalignment involves trade-offs among competing values. Because misalignment can occur along each axis -- and affect stakeholders differently -- the structural description shows that alignment cannot be "solved" through technical design alone, but must be managed through ongoing institutional processes that determine how objectives are set, how systems are evaluated, and how affected communities can contest or reshape those decisions.
