Alignment, Agency and Autonomy in Frontier AI: A Systems Engineering Perspective

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2503.05748v1
• Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2025 21:37:20 GMT
• Title: Alignment, Agency and Autonomy in Frontier AI: A Systems Engineering Perspective
• Authors: Krti Tallam,
• Abstract summary: Concepts of alignment, agency, and autonomy have become central to AI safety, governance, and control.<n>This paper traces the historical, philosophical, and technical evolution of these concepts, emphasizing how their definitions influence AI development, deployment, and oversight.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: As artificial intelligence scales, the concepts of alignment, agency, and autonomy have become central to AI safety, governance, and control. However, even in human contexts, these terms lack universal definitions, varying across disciplines such as philosophy, psychology, law, computer science, mathematics, and political science. This inconsistency complicates their application to AI, where differing interpretations lead to conflicting approaches in system design and regulation. This paper traces the historical, philosophical, and technical evolution of these concepts, emphasizing how their definitions influence AI development, deployment, and oversight. We argue that the urgency surrounding AI alignment and autonomy stems not only from technical advancements but also from the increasing deployment of AI in high-stakes decision making. Using Agentic AI as a case study, we examine the emergent properties of machine agency and autonomy, highlighting the risks of misalignment in real-world systems. Through an analysis of automation failures (Tesla Autopilot, Boeing 737 MAX), multi-agent coordination (Metas CICERO), and evolving AI architectures (DeepMinds AlphaZero, OpenAIs AutoGPT), we assess the governance and safety challenges posed by frontier AI.

Related papers

• The Philosophic Turn for AI Agents: Replacing centralized digital rhetoric with decentralized truth-seeking [0.0]
  In the face of AI technology, individuals will increasingly rely on AI agents to navigate life's growing complexities. This paper addresses a fundamental dilemma posed by AI decision-support systems: the risk of either becoming overwhelmed by complex decisions, or having autonomy compromised.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-24T19:34:43Z)
• AI Generations: From AI 1.0 to AI 4.0 [3.4440023363051266]
  This paper proposes that Artificial Intelligence (AI) progresses through several overlapping generations. Each of these AI generations is driven by shifting priorities among algorithms, computing power, and data. It explores the profound ethical, regulatory, and philosophical challenges that arise when artificial systems approach (or aspire to) human-like autonomy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-16T23:19:44Z)
• Imagining and building wise machines: The centrality of AI metacognition [78.76893632793497]
  We argue that shortcomings stem from one overarching failure: AI systems lack wisdom. While AI research has focused on task-level strategies, metacognition is underdeveloped in AI systems. We propose that integrating metacognitive capabilities into AI systems is crucial for enhancing their robustness, explainability, cooperation, and safety.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-04T18:10:10Z)
• The Switch, the Ladder, and the Matrix: Models for Classifying AI Systems [0.0]
  There still exists a gap between principles and practices in AI ethics. One major obstacle organisations face when attempting to operationalise AI Ethics is the lack of a well-defined material scope.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-07T12:16:01Z)
• Combining AI Control Systems and Human Decision Support via Robustness and Criticality [53.10194953873209]
  We extend a methodology for adversarial explanations (AE) to state-of-the-art reinforcement learning frameworks. We show that the learned AI control system demonstrates robustness against adversarial tampering. In a training / learning framework, this technology can improve both the AI's decisions and explanations through human interaction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-03T15:38:57Z)
• AI Alignment: A Comprehensive Survey [70.35693485015659]
  AI alignment aims to make AI systems behave in line with human intentions and values. We identify four principles as the key objectives of AI alignment: Robustness, Interpretability, Controllability, and Ethicality. We decompose current alignment research into two key components: forward alignment and backward alignment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-30T15:52:15Z)
• Managing extreme AI risks amid rapid progress [171.05448842016125]
  We describe risks that include large-scale social harms, malicious uses, and irreversible loss of human control over autonomous AI systems. There is a lack of consensus about how exactly such risks arise, and how to manage them. Present governance initiatives lack the mechanisms and institutions to prevent misuse and recklessness, and barely address autonomous systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-26T17:59:06Z)
• Examining the Differential Risk from High-level Artificial Intelligence and the Question of Control [0.0]
  The extent and scope of future AI capabilities remain a key uncertainty. There are concerns over the extent of integration and oversight of AI opaque decision processes. This study presents a hierarchical complex systems framework to model AI risk and provide a template for alternative futures analysis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-06T15:46:02Z)
• Never trust, always verify : a roadmap for Trustworthy AI? [12.031113181911627]
  We examine trust in the context of AI-based systems to understand what it means for an AI system to be trustworthy. We suggest a trust (resp. zero-trust) model for AI and suggest a set of properties that should be satisfied to ensure the trustworthiness of AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-23T21:13:10Z)
• 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)
• Cybertrust: From Explainable to Actionable and Interpretable AI (AI2) [58.981120701284816]
  Actionable and Interpretable AI (AI2) will incorporate explicit quantifications and visualizations of user confidence in AI recommendations. It will allow examining and testing of AI system predictions to establish a basis for trust in the systems' decision making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-26T18:53:09Z)
• Building Bridges: Generative Artworks to Explore AI Ethics [56.058588908294446]
  In recent years, there has been an increased emphasis on understanding and mitigating adverse impacts of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies on society. A significant challenge in the design of ethical AI systems is that there are multiple stakeholders in the AI pipeline, each with their own set of constraints and interests. This position paper outlines some potential ways in which generative artworks can play this role by serving as accessible and powerful educational tools.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-25T22:31:55Z)

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.