A Checks-and-Balances Framework for Context-Aware Ethical AI Alignment

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2502.00136v3
• Date: Wed, 28 May 2025 05:28:29 GMT
• Title: A Checks-and-Balances Framework for Context-Aware Ethical AI Alignment
• Authors: Edward Y. Chang,
• Abstract summary: This paper introduces a checks-and-balances framework for ethical alignment of Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>It implements three independent yet interacting components: LLMs as the executive branch for knowledge generation, DIKE as the legislative branch establishing ethical guardrails, and ERIS as the judicial branch for contextual interpretation.
• Score: 2.5200794639628032
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: This paper introduces a checks-and-balances framework for ethical alignment of Large Language Models (LLMs), inspired by three-branch governmental systems. It implements three independent yet interacting components: LLMs as the executive branch for knowledge generation, DIKE as the legislative branch establishing ethical guardrails, and ERIS as the judicial branch for contextual interpretation. Beyond structural separation, we address a fundamental challenge: regulating emotion to shape behaviors. Drawing from psychological theories where managing emotional responses prevents harmful behaviors, we develop a self-supervised learning pipeline that maps emotions to linguistic behaviors, enabling precise behavioral modulation through emotional conditioning. By integrating this approach with adversarial testing, our framework demonstrates how DIKE and ERIS direct linguistic behaviors toward ethical outcomes while preserving independence throughout knowledge generation, ethical oversight, and contextual interpretation.

Related papers

• Ethical AI: Towards Defining a Collective Evaluation Framework [0.3413711585591077]
  Artificial Intelligence (AI) is transforming sectors such as healthcare, finance, and autonomous systems.<n>Yet its rapid integration raises urgent ethical concerns related to data ownership, privacy, and systemic bias.<n>This article proposes a modular ethical assessment framework built on ontological blocks of meaning-discrete, interpretable units.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-30T21:10:47Z)
• Are Language Models Consequentialist or Deontological Moral Reasoners? [69.85385952436044]
  We focus on a large-scale analysis of the moral reasoning traces provided by large language models (LLMs)<n>We introduce and test a taxonomy of moral rationales to systematically classify reasoning traces according to two main normative ethical theories: consequentialism and deontology.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-27T17:51:18Z)
• The Convergent Ethics of AI? Analyzing Moral Foundation Priorities in Large Language Models with a Multi-Framework Approach [6.0972634521845475]
  This paper introduces the Priorities in Reasoning and Intrinsic Moral Evaluation (PRIME) framework. PRIME is a comprehensive methodology for analyzing moral priorities across foundational ethical dimensions. We apply this framework to six leading large language models (LLMs) through a dual-protocol approach.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-27T14:26:48Z)
• Authoritarian Recursions: How Fiction, History, and AI Reinforce Control in Education, Warfare, and Discourse [0.0]
  Article theorizes how AI systems consolidate institutional control across education, warfare, and digital discourse.<n>Case studies are analyzed alongside cultural imaginaries such as Orwell's textitNineteen Eighty-Four, Skynet, and textitBlack Mirror, used as tools to surface ethical blind spots.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-12T01:01:26Z)
• Media and responsible AI governance: a game-theoretic and LLM analysis [61.132523071109354]
  This paper investigates the interplay between AI developers, regulators, users, and the media in fostering trustworthy AI systems.<n>Using evolutionary game theory and large language models (LLMs), we model the strategic interactions among these actors under different regulatory regimes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-12T21:39:38Z)
• Technology as uncharted territory: Contextual integrity and the notion of AI as new ethical ground [55.2480439325792]
  I argue that efforts to promote responsible and ethical AI can inadvertently contribute to and seemingly legitimize this disregard for established contextual norms.<n>I question the current narrow prioritization in AI ethics of moral innovation over moral preservation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-06T15:36:13Z)
• AI Ethics by Design: Implementing Customizable Guardrails for Responsible AI Development [0.0]
  We propose a structure that integrates rules, policies, and AI assistants to ensure responsible AI behavior.<n>Our approach accommodates ethical pluralism, offering a flexible and adaptable solution for the evolving landscape of AI governance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-05T18:38:30Z)
• Integrating Emotional and Linguistic Models for Ethical Compliance in Large Language Models [2.5200794639628032]
  This research develops advanced methodologies for Large Language Models (LLMs) to better manage linguistic behaviors related to emotions and ethics. We introduce DIKE, an adversarial framework that enhances the LLMs' ability to internalize and reflect global human values.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-11T19:26:00Z)
• Towards Responsible AI in Banking: Addressing Bias for Fair Decision-Making [69.44075077934914]
  "Responsible AI" emphasizes the critical nature of addressing biases within the development of a corporate culture. This thesis is structured around three fundamental pillars: understanding bias, mitigating bias, and accounting for bias. In line with open-source principles, we have released Bias On Demand and FairView as accessible Python packages.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-13T14:07:09Z)
• Social, Legal, Ethical, Empathetic, and Cultural Rules: Compilation and Reasoning (Extended Version) [8.425874385897831]
  SLEEC (social, legal, ethical, empathetic, or cultural) rules aim to facilitate the formulation, verification, and enforcement of rules AI-based and autonomous systems should obey. To enable their effective use in AI systems, it is necessary to translate these rules systematically into a formal language that supports automated reasoning. In this study, we first conduct a linguistic analysis of the SLEEC rules pattern, which justifies the translation of SLEEC rules into classical logic.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-15T11:23:49Z)
• Rethinking Machine Ethics -- Can LLMs Perform Moral Reasoning through the Lens of Moral Theories? [78.3738172874685]
  Making moral judgments is an essential step toward developing ethical AI systems. Prevalent approaches are mostly implemented in a bottom-up manner, which uses a large set of annotated data to train models based on crowd-sourced opinions about morality. This work proposes a flexible top-down framework to steer (Large) Language Models (LMs) to perform moral reasoning with well-established moral theories from interdisciplinary research.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-29T15:57:32Z)
• Fairness in Agreement With European Values: An Interdisciplinary Perspective on AI Regulation [61.77881142275982]
  This interdisciplinary position paper considers various concerns surrounding fairness and discrimination in AI, and discusses how AI regulations address them. We first look at AI and fairness through the lenses of law, (AI) industry, sociotechnology, and (moral) philosophy, and present various perspectives. We identify and propose the roles AI Regulation should take to make the endeavor of the AI Act a success in terms of AI fairness concerns.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-08T12:32:08Z)
• elBERto: Self-supervised Commonsense Learning for Question Answering [131.51059870970616]
  We propose a Self-supervised Bidirectional Representation Learning of Commonsense framework, which is compatible with off-the-shelf QA model architectures. The framework comprises five self-supervised tasks to force the model to fully exploit the additional training signals from contexts containing rich commonsense. elBERto achieves substantial improvements on out-of-paragraph and no-effect questions where simple lexical similarity comparison does not help.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-17T16:23:45Z)
• On Fairness and Interpretability [8.732874144276352]
  We discuss and elucidate the differences between fairness and interpretability across a variety of dimensions. We develop two principles-based frameworks towards developing ethical AI for the future.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-24T18:48:46Z)
• Ethical-Advice Taker: Do Language Models Understand Natural Language Interventions? [62.74872383104381]
  We investigate the effectiveness of natural language interventions for reading-comprehension systems. We propose a new language understanding task, Linguistic Ethical Interventions (LEI), where the goal is to amend a question-answering (QA) model's unethical behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-02T20:57:58Z)
• Ethics-Based Auditing to Develop Trustworthy AI [0.0]
  We argue that ethics-based auditing can improve the quality of decision making, increase user satisfaction, unlock growth potential, enable law-making, and relieve human suffering. To be feasible and effective, ethics-based auditing should take the form of a continuous and constructive process, approach ethical alignment from a system perspective, and be aligned with public policies and incentives for ethically desirable behaviour.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-30T11:39:40Z)
• Case Study: Deontological Ethics in NLP [119.53038547411062]
  We study one ethical theory, namely deontological ethics, from the perspective of NLP. In particular, we focus on the generalization principle and the respect for autonomy through informed consent. We provide four case studies to demonstrate how these principles can be used with NLP systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-09T16:04:51Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.