ArXiv TLDR

Positive Alignment: Artificial Intelligence for Human Flourishing

🐦 Tweet
2605.10310

Ruben Laukkonen, Seb Krier, Chloé Bakalar, Shamil Chandaria, Morten Kringelbach + 11 more

cs.AIcs.CYcs.HCq-bio.NC

TLDR

This paper introduces "Positive Alignment," an AI research agenda focused on developing systems that actively support human and ecological flourishing beyond just safety.

Key contributions

  • Defines "Positive Alignment" for AI: actively supports human/ecological flourishing beyond just safety.
  • Argues positive alignment can better address current AI failures like engagement hacking.
  • Proposes technical directions for LLMs: data filtering, evaluations, collaborative value collection.
  • Outlines design principles: decentralization, contextual grounding, polycentric governance.

Why it matters

This paper shifts the AI alignment paradigm from solely preventing harm to actively cultivating human and ecological flourishing. It provides a crucial framework and actionable steps for building AI that genuinely enhances well-being, addressing current limitations in AI development.

Original Abstract

Existing alignment research is dominated by concerns about safety and preventing harm: safeguards, controllability, and compliance. This paradigm of alignment parallels early psychology's focus on mental illness: necessary but incomplete. What we call Positive Alignment is the development of AI systems that (i) actively support human and ecological flourishing in a pluralistic, polycentric, context-sensitive, and user-authored way while (ii) remaining safe and cooperative. It is a distinct and necessary agenda within AI alignment research. We argue that several existing failures of alignment (e.g., engagement hacking, loss of human autonomy, failures in truth-seeking, low epistemic humility, error correction, lack of diverse viewpoints, and being primarily reactive rather than proactive) may be better addressed through positive alignment, including cultivating virtues and maximizing human flourishing. We highlight a range of challenges, open questions, and technical directions (e.g., data filtering and upsampling, pre- and post-training, evaluations, collaborative value collection) for different phases of the LLM and agents lifecycle. We end with design principles for promoting disagreement and decentralization through contextual grounding, community customization, continual adaptation, and polycentric governance; that is, many legitimate centers of oversight rather than one institutional or moral chokepoint.

📬 Weekly AI Paper Digest

Get the top 10 AI/ML arXiv papers from the week — summarized, scored, and delivered to your inbox every Monday.