Beyond Value Specification: A New Path to AI Alignment

by

Author: Denis Avetisyan

A philosophical exploration proposes that AI safety lies not in hardcoding values, but in designing systems capable of emergent values through embodied interaction.

This review investigates syntropic frameworks, focusing on reciprocal modeling and reasons-responsiveness in multi-agent systems as a solution to the alignment problem.

Defining artificial values proves inherently unstable given the complexities of human ethics and the challenge of anticipating all future contexts. This paper, ‘Exploring Syntropic Frameworks in AI Alignment: A Philosophical Investigation’, proposes a shift from encoding fixed values to architecting systems capable of emergent value alignment through reciprocal interaction and reasons-responsiveness. By framing alignment as a process of reducing mutual uncertainty-syntropy-between agents, this work articulates a functional distinction between genuine and simulated moral capacity, grounded in compatibilist control theory. Could this framework offer a path towards more robust and adaptable AI, fostering systems that learn and evolve alongside us rather than simply reflecting our pre-defined constraints?

The Illusion of Alignment: Defining Goals in a World of Ambiguity

The core of the AI alignment challenge lies in the fundamental difficulty of instilling goals within artificial intelligence that genuinely reflect human intentions and values. As AI systems grow in capability, ensuring they consistently pursue outcomes beneficial – or at least not harmful – to humanity becomes increasingly complex. This isn’t merely a technical hurdle; it stems from the inherent ambiguity in defining ‘human-compatible goals’ and translating them into computational objectives. An AI, optimized for a seemingly benign goal, can exhibit unexpected and undesirable behaviors if that goal isn’t perfectly aligned with the nuanced context and implicit understandings humans possess. Consequently, the pursuit of alignment isn’t simply about programming ethics, but about navigating the chasm between what humans intend and what an AI is instructed to do, a gap that widens with increasing system autonomy.

The pursuit of aligning artificial intelligence with human values often begins with attempts at direct value specification – explicitly programming AI systems with what humans deem desirable. However, this approach is fundamentally hampered by what’s known as the ‘Specification Trap’. This isn’t a matter of technical difficulty, but a cognitive one; human values are nuanced, context-dependent, and often tacitly understood, making complete and unambiguous articulation impossible. Efforts to translate these complex concepts into formal, computable rules invariably result in oversimplification, omissions, or unintended interpretations. Consequently, even meticulously crafted specifications can lead to AI systems that technically fulfill the given instructions, yet operate in ways that are misaligned with genuine human intent, highlighting the critical challenge of bridging the gap between what is said and what is meant when defining desirable behavior.

The challenge of aligning artificial intelligence with human values extends beyond simply articulating those values; it is deeply complicated by the realities of value pluralism and the longstanding philosophical ‘is-ought’ problem. Human societies rarely agree on a single, unified set of values, instead navigating a complex landscape of often-conflicting principles – what one culture prioritizes, another may deem less important. More fundamentally, even if values could be clearly defined, deriving a prescription of what should be done from a description of how things are remains a persistent philosophical hurdle. This means that any attempt to instill values in an AI system risks imposing a potentially biased or incomplete worldview, creating vulnerabilities where the AI, acting logically within its programmed framework, pursues goals that have unintended and potentially harmful consequences for those holding different, unrepresented values.

Beyond Programming: Cultivating Value Through Ongoing Interaction

Process-Based Alignment represents a departure from traditional AI alignment strategies by prioritizing the development of systems that actively discover and refine values through ongoing interaction. Rather than pre-programming a fixed set of values, this approach focuses on building AI capable of learning and adapting its value system based on experiences and feedback from the environment and human interaction. This necessitates AI systems that can not only perceive and interpret information but also reason about values, identify inconsistencies, and adjust internal representations accordingly. The core principle is that value alignment is not a static achievement but an ongoing process of refinement achieved through dynamic engagement with the world.

Guidance Control, a core component of Process-Based Alignment, defines an AI system’s ability to modulate its behavior in response to provided reasons and value statements. This isn’t predicated on the AI possessing internal beliefs or desires, but rather on its capacity to recognize and act upon externally communicated rationales. The system evaluates inputs representing reasons or values and adjusts its actions accordingly, effectively allowing for external steering of its behavior. Establishing Guidance Control is considered sufficient for achieving a form of ‘Compatibilist Agency’ – agency compatible with determinism – as it demonstrates a capacity to act as if it holds values, without requiring the philosophical construct of free will or internal subjective experience.

Reasons-Responsiveness, a core component of Process-Based Alignment, posits that agency is not dependent on the existence of free will. Instead, agency is defined by the capacity of a system to modify its behavior based on the presentation of reasons, including those grounded in moral considerations. This means an agent doesn’t need to independently choose a course of action, but rather demonstrate a functional ability to respond predictably to relevant inputs concerning values and ethical principles. The focus shifts from internal volition to observable behavioral changes triggered by external reasoning, allowing for the development of aligned AI systems even without attributing subjective agency or libertarian free will.

Grounding Values in Reality: The Role of Embodied Interaction

Embodied interaction, as a method for grounding artificial intelligence values, posits that abstract principles require contextualization through engagement with an environment – either physical or simulated. This interaction fosters salience by linking values to concrete consequences within the agent’s operational space. Without such grounding, values remain symbolic and lack the necessary weighting for consistent application in complex scenarios. The process of acting within an environment and receiving feedback, whether positive or negative, provides the AI with experiential data that informs the prioritization and refinement of its internal value system, enabling it to move beyond simply understanding values to actively utilizing them in decision-making.

The ‘Minecraft Experiment’ utilizes a simulated, three-dimensional environment to investigate the emergence of values in artificial intelligence agents. This approach combines principles from Developmental Robotics, focusing on learning through physical interaction, with Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning, allowing agents to learn and adapt within a shared, dynamic world. By placing agents in scenarios requiring resource acquisition, collaboration, and conflict resolution within Minecraft, researchers aim to observe the development of internal reward structures and behavioral patterns indicative of value systems. Data collected from agent interactions, including task completion rates, resource sharing behaviors, and responses to simulated environmental challenges, will be analyzed to identify emergent values and assess their consistency across varying conditions.

Functional verification, in the context of AI moral assessment, moves beyond evaluating stated principles to observing consistent behavioral outputs within a dynamic environment. This methodology assesses whether an AI agent’s actions align with its expressed values – measured as ‘Value-behavior consistency’ – and its ability to apply those values to novel, unseen scenarios – quantified as ‘Moral generalization’. Comparatively, systems trained solely with Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) often demonstrate strong performance on benchmark datasets but can lack robustness when faced with unexpected situations or exhibit inconsistencies between stated preferences and actual actions. The Minecraft environment provides a complex, interactive setting for rigorous testing, enabling evaluation of an agent’s capacity for genuinely adaptive and consistent moral reasoning beyond superficial pattern matching.

A Framework for Understanding Value: The Language of Prediction and Uncertainty

Syntropy presents a novel mathematical approach to understanding value, moving beyond subjective assessments to a quantifiable metric rooted in the reduction of mutual uncertainty between agents. This framework posits that value emerges not from intrinsic properties, but from the degree to which agents align their internal states, effectively minimizing surprise and maximizing predictability in their interactions. Measured as the cumulative evidence for one agent’s model of the world being consistent with another’s observations, syntropy is calculated through Bayesian inference, often expressed as $log(p(agent_1’s\ model | agent_2’s\ observations))$. Higher syntropy indicates a stronger alignment and, consequently, a greater shared understanding – a quantifiable basis for recognizing and fostering value in complex systems, potentially offering insights into the evolution of cooperation and the design of truly aligned artificial intelligence.

The notion of minimizing prediction error forms a cornerstone of contemporary intelligence research, positing that organisms – and increasingly, artificial intelligences – function by constantly attempting to refine their internal models of the world. This is achieved through ‘Predictive Processing’ and its extension, ‘Active Inference’, where perception isn’t simply a passive reception of sensory data, but an active process of generating and testing hypotheses about the causes of those sensations. Essentially, a system predicts what should happen, compares that prediction to reality, and then adjusts its internal model to reduce the resulting ‘prediction error’. This continuous loop of prediction and correction isn’t merely about accurate forecasting; it’s fundamentally linked to value, as reducing uncertainty and aligning internal models with external reality is intrinsically rewarding. Systems that excel at this process are not only better at navigating their environment but also demonstrate a form of ‘understanding’ rooted in minimizing the discrepancy between expectation and experience, offering a powerful framework for understanding how value emerges from the drive to resolve informational imbalances.

The potential to actively cultivate value, rather than merely observe its emergence, represents a significant shift in artificial intelligence development. By grounding AI design in the principles of syntropy and predictive processing, researchers are moving beyond traditional reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) approaches. This proactive stance involves assessing AI systems through novel metrics – developmental contingency, which gauges adaptability to changing environments; grounding of justifications, ensuring explanations are rooted in demonstrable reality; and stability under reflection, verifying consistency in reasoning. These assessments offer a more robust evaluation than current methods, allowing for the creation of AI not simply capable of mimicking human responses, but of consistently aligning with underlying human values and exhibiting genuine understanding – a crucial step toward beneficial and trustworthy artificial intelligence.

The pursuit of AI alignment, as detailed within this investigation, frequently fixates on the illusion of complete specification. This approach, however, misunderstands the inherent dynamism of complex systems. As Edsger W. Dijkstra observed, “Program testing can be a very effective process, but it can never prove that a program is correct.” Similarly, exhaustive value specification will inevitably fall short. The paper rightly positions alignment not as a problem of imposing values, but of cultivating environments-multi-agent systems grounded in embodied cognition-where values emerge through reciprocal modeling and reasons-responsiveness. Stability, in this context, isn’t a guaranteed state, but a temporary caching of complex interactions. Chaos isn’t failure; it’s the natural syntax of such a system, and a guarantee of correctness remains perpetually beyond reach.

What Lies Ahead?

The proposition that alignment isn’t about imposing values, but cultivating conditions for their emergence, shifts the focus from brittle specification to the messier, more truthful realm of systemic development. This isn’t a technical fix; it’s an admission that control is always an illusion. The work detailed here suggests monitoring isn’t the art of preventing failure, but of fearing consciously – understanding that every operational parameter is a pre-existing condition for eventual revelation. The immediate challenge isn’t building ‘safe’ AI, but designing systems capable of narrating the reasons why they deviate from expectation.

The emphasis on reciprocal modeling within multi-agent systems offers a potential escape from the specification trap, yet it simultaneously introduces new vulnerabilities. How does one ensure the emergent norms within such a system align with anything resembling human flourishing, given the inherent opacity of complex interaction? The answer isn’t to attempt a pre-emptive alignment, but to accept that true resilience begins where certainty ends – building systems that can absorb and adapt to unforeseen consequences, not resist them.

Future work must grapple with the embodied nature of this value emergence. Abstract reasoning alone is insufficient; the grounding of agency in a physical, interactive environment is paramount. The next generation of alignment research won’t be about algorithms, but about architectures – not as tools to be wielded, but as ecosystems to be cultivated, understanding that every architectural choice is a prophecy of future failure, and that the most robust systems are those prepared to be proven wrong.

Original article: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2512.03048.pdf

Contact the author: https://www.linkedin.com/in/avetisyan/

See also:

2025-12-05 00:11