Position: We Need An Adaptive Interpretation of Helpful, Honest, and Harmless Principles

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2502.06059v3
• Date: Fri, 23 May 2025 11:54:42 GMT
• Title: Position: We Need An Adaptive Interpretation of Helpful, Honest, and Harmless Principles
• Authors: Yue Huang, Chujie Gao, Yujun Zhou, Kehan Guo, Xiangqi Wang, Or Cohen-Sasson, Max Lamparth, Xiangliang Zhang,
• Abstract summary: The Helpful, Honest, and Harmless (HHH) principle is a framework for aligning AI systems with human values.<n>We argue for an adaptive interpretation of the HHH principle and propose a reference framework for its adaptation to diverse scenarios.<n>This work offers practical insights for improving AI alignment, ensuring that HHH principles remain both grounded and operationally effective in real-world AI deployment.
• Score: 24.448749292993234
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: The Helpful, Honest, and Harmless (HHH) principle is a foundational framework for aligning AI systems with human values. However, existing interpretations of the HHH principle often overlook contextual variability and conflicting requirements across applications. In this paper, we argue for an adaptive interpretation of the HHH principle and propose a reference framework for its adaptation to diverse scenarios. We first examine the principle's foundational significance and identify ambiguities and conflicts through case studies of its dimensions. To address these challenges, we introduce the concept of priority order, which provides a structured approach for balancing trade-offs among helpfulness, honesty, and harmlessness. Further, we explore the interrelationships between these dimensions, demonstrating how harmlessness and helpfulness can be jointly enhanced and analyzing their interdependencies in high-risk evaluations. Building on these insights, we propose a reference framework that integrates context definition, value prioritization, risk assessment, and benchmarking standards to guide the adaptive application of the HHH principle. This work offers practical insights for improving AI alignment, ensuring that HHH principles remain both ethically grounded and operationally effective in real-world AI deployment.

Related papers

• Principles and Reasons Behind Automated Vehicle Decisions in Ethically Ambiguous Everyday Scenarios [4.244307111313931]
  We propose a principled conceptual framework for AV decision-making in routine, ethically ambiguous scenarios.<n>The framework supports dynamic, human-aligned behaviour by prioritising safety, allowing pragmatic actions when strict legal adherence would undermine key values.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-18T11:52:33Z)
• Bounded Rationality for LLMs: Satisficing Alignment at Inference-Time [52.230936493691985]
  We propose SITAlign, an inference framework that addresses the multifaceted nature of alignment by maximizing a primary objective while satisfying threshold-based constraints on secondary criteria.<n>We provide theoretical insights by deriving sub-optimality bounds of our satisficing based inference alignment approach.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-29T17:56:05Z)
• 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)
• Two Means to an End Goal: Connecting Explainability and Contestability in the Regulation of Public Sector AI [8.626461916354874]
  We examine the intersection and implementation of explainability and contestability, and their understanding in different research communities.<n>We describe the main points of friction in the realization of both principles, including the alignment between top-down and bottom-up regulation, the assignment of responsibility, and the need for interdisciplinary collaboration.<n>We believe our contributions can inform policy-making and regulation of these core principles and enable more effective and equitable design, development, and deployment of trustworthy public AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-25T10:34:00Z)
• Towards Developing Ethical Reasoners: Integrating Probabilistic Reasoning and Decision-Making for Complex AI Systems [4.854297874710511]
  A computational ethics framework is essential for AI and autonomous systems operating in complex, real-world environments. Existing approaches often lack the adaptability needed to integrate ethical principles into dynamic and ambiguous contexts. We outline the necessary ingredients for building a holistic, meta-level framework that combines intermediate representations, probabilistic reasoning, and knowledge representation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-28T17:25:11Z)
• Causality Is Key to Understand and Balance Multiple Goals in Trustworthy ML and Foundation Models [91.24296813969003]
  This paper advocates integrating causal methods into machine learning to navigate the trade-offs among key principles of trustworthy ML. We argue that a causal approach is essential for balancing multiple competing objectives in both trustworthy ML and foundation models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-28T14:57:33Z)
• On the Trustworthiness of Generative Foundation Models: Guideline, Assessment, and Perspective [333.9220561243189]
  Generative Foundation Models (GenFMs) have emerged as transformative tools. Their widespread adoption raises critical concerns regarding trustworthiness across dimensions. This paper presents a comprehensive framework to address these challenges through three key contributions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-20T06:20:36Z)
• Bridging the Gap in XAI-Why Reliable Metrics Matter for Explainability and Compliance [2.3020018305241337]
  The paper emphasizes the critical gap in the evaluation of Explainable AI (XAI) due to the lack of standardized and reliable metrics.<n>Current evaluation methods are often fragmented, subjective, and biased, making them prone to manipulation and complicating the assessment of complex models.<n>We advocate for widespread research into developing robust, context-sensitive evaluation metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-07T06:54:48Z)
• PRISM: Perspective Reasoning for Integrated Synthesis and Mediation as a Multi-Perspective Framework for AI Alignment [0.0]
  Perspective Reasoning for Integrated Synthesis and Mediation (PRISM) is a framework for addressing persistent challenges in AI alignment. PRISM organizes moral concerns into seven "basis worldviews", each hypothesized to capture a distinct dimension of human moral cognition. We briefly outline future directions, including real-world deployments and formal verifications, while maintaining the core focus on multi-perspective synthesis and conflict mediation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-05T02:13:57Z)
• Deliberative Alignment: Reasoning Enables Safer Language Models [64.60765108418062]
  We introduce Deliberative Alignment, a new paradigm that teaches the model safety specifications and trains it to explicitly recall and accurately reason over the specifications before answering.<n>We used this approach to align OpenAI's o-series models, and achieved highly precise adherence to OpenAI's safety policies, without requiring human-written chain-of-thoughts or answers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-20T21:00:11Z)
• Beyond Preferences in AI Alignment [15.878773061188516]
  We characterize and challenge the preferentist approach to AI alignment. We show how preferences fail to capture the thick semantic content of human values. We argue that AI systems should be aligned with normative standards appropriate to their social roles.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-30T03:14:20Z)
• Disciplining Deliberation: A Sociotechnical Perspective on Machine Learning Trade-offs [0.0]
  Two prominent trade-offs in artificial intelligence are between predictive accuracy and fairness, and between predictive accuracy and interpretability.<n> prevailing interpretation views these formal trade-offs as directly corresponding to tensions between underlying social values.<n>I introduce a sociotechnical approach to examining the value implications of trade-offs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-07T05:03:18Z)
• SoFA: Shielded On-the-fly Alignment via Priority Rule Following [90.32819418613407]
  This paper introduces a novel alignment paradigm, priority rule following, which defines rules as the primary control mechanism in each dialog. We present PriorityDistill, a semi-automated approach for distilling priority following signals from simulations to ensure robust rule integration and adherence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-27T09:52:27Z)
• A Systematic Review on Fostering Appropriate Trust in Human-AI Interaction [19.137907393497848]
  Appropriate Trust in Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems has rapidly become an important area of focus for both researchers and practitioners. Various approaches have been used to achieve it, such as confidence scores, explanations, trustworthiness cues, or uncertainty communication. This paper presents a systematic review to identify current practices in building appropriate trust, different ways to measure it, types of tasks used, and potential challenges associated with it.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-08T12:19:58Z)
• Provably Efficient Iterated CVaR Reinforcement Learning with Function Approximation and Human Feedback [57.6775169085215]
  Risk-sensitive reinforcement learning aims to optimize policies that balance the expected reward and risk. We present a novel framework that employs an Iterated Conditional Value-at-Risk (CVaR) objective under both linear and general function approximations. We propose provably sample-efficient algorithms for this Iterated CVaR RL and provide rigorous theoretical analysis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-06T08:14:54Z)
• Factoring the Matrix of Domination: A Critical Review and Reimagination of Intersectionality in AI Fairness [55.037030060643126]
  Intersectionality is a critical framework that allows us to examine how social inequalities persist. We argue that adopting intersectionality as an analytical framework is pivotal to effectively operationalizing fairness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-16T21:02:09Z)
• Towards a multi-stakeholder value-based assessment framework for algorithmic systems [76.79703106646967]
  We develop a value-based assessment framework that visualizes closeness and tensions between values. We give guidelines on how to operationalize them, while opening up the evaluation and deliberation process to a wide range of stakeholders.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-09T19:28:32Z)
• A Principles-based Ethics Assurance Argument Pattern for AI and Autonomous Systems [5.45210704757922]
  An emerging proposition within the trustworthy AI and autonomous systems (AI/AS) research community is to use assurance cases to instil justified confidence. This paper substantially develops the proposition and makes it concrete. It brings together the assurance case methodology with a set of ethical principles to structure a principles-based ethics assurance argument pattern.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-29T09:08:03Z)

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.