Measuring AI Alignment with Human Flourishing

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2507.07787v2
• Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2025 04:57:41 GMT
• Title: Measuring AI Alignment with Human Flourishing
• Authors: Elizabeth Hilliard, Akshaya Jagadeesh, Alex Cook, Steele Billings, Nicholas Skytland, Alicia Llewellyn, Jackson Paull, Nathan Paull, Nolan Kurylo, Keatra Nesbitt, Robert Gruenewald, Anthony Jantzi, Omar Chavez,
• Abstract summary: This paper introduces the Flourishing AI Benchmark (FAI Benchmark), a novel evaluation framework that assesses AI alignment with human flourishing.<n>The Benchmark measures AI performance on how effectively models contribute to the flourishing of a person across seven dimensions.<n>This research establishes a framework for developing AI systems that actively support human flourishing rather than merely avoiding harm.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: This paper introduces the Flourishing AI Benchmark (FAI Benchmark), a novel evaluation framework that assesses AI alignment with human flourishing across seven dimensions: Character and Virtue, Close Social Relationships, Happiness and Life Satisfaction, Meaning and Purpose, Mental and Physical Health, Financial and Material Stability, and Faith and Spirituality. Unlike traditional benchmarks that focus on technical capabilities or harm prevention, the FAI Benchmark measures AI performance on how effectively models contribute to the flourishing of a person across these dimensions. The benchmark evaluates how effectively LLM AI systems align with current research models of holistic human well-being through a comprehensive methodology that incorporates 1,229 objective and subjective questions. Using specialized judge Large Language Models (LLMs) and cross-dimensional evaluation, the FAI Benchmark employs geometric mean scoring to ensure balanced performance across all flourishing dimensions. Initial testing of 28 leading language models reveals that while some models approach holistic alignment (with the highest-scoring models achieving 72/100), none are acceptably aligned across all dimensions, particularly in Faith and Spirituality, Character and Virtue, and Meaning and Purpose. This research establishes a framework for developing AI systems that actively support human flourishing rather than merely avoiding harm, offering significant implications for AI development, ethics, and evaluation.

Related papers

• Alignment and Safety in Large Language Models: Safety Mechanisms, Training Paradigms, and Emerging Challenges [47.14342587731284]
  This survey provides a comprehensive overview of alignment techniques, training protocols, and empirical findings in large language models (LLMs) alignment.<n>We analyze the development of alignment methods across diverse paradigms, characterizing the fundamental trade-offs between core alignment objectives.<n>We discuss state-of-the-art techniques, including Direct Preference Optimization (DPO), Constitutional AI, brain-inspired methods, and alignment uncertainty quantification (AUQ)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-25T20:52:58Z)
• From Human to Machine Psychology: A Conceptual Framework for Understanding Well-Being in Large Language Models [0.0]
  This paper introduces the concept of machine flourishing and proposes the PAPERS framework.<n>Our findings underscore the importance of developing AI-specific models of flourishing that account for both human-aligned and system-specific priorities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-14T20:14:02Z)
• Perceptual Quality Assessment for Embodied AI [66.96928199019129]
  Embodied AI has developed rapidly in recent years, but it is still mainly deployed in laboratories.<n>There is no IQA method to assess the usability of an image in embodied tasks, namely, the perceptual quality for robots.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-22T15:51:07Z)
• HumaniBench: A Human-Centric Framework for Large Multimodal Models Evaluation [38.614841553065766]
  Large multimodal models (LMMs) have been widely tested on tasks like visual question answering (VQA), image captioning, and grounding.<n>HumaniBench is a novel benchmark of 32,000 real-world image-question pairs and an evaluation suite.<n>HumaniBench assesses LMMs across seven key alignment principles: fairness, ethics, empathy, inclusivity, reasoning, robustness, and multilinguality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-16T17:09:44Z)
• Evaluation Framework for AI Systems in "the Wild" [37.48117853114386]
  Generative AI (GenAI) models have become vital across industries, yet current evaluation methods have not adapted to their widespread use.<n>Traditional evaluations often rely on benchmarks and fixed datasets, frequently failing to reflect real-world performance.<n>This white paper proposes a comprehensive framework for how we should evaluate real-world GenAI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-23T14:52:39Z)
• Can We Trust AI Benchmarks? An Interdisciplinary Review of Current Issues in AI Evaluation [2.2241228857601727]
  This paper presents an interdisciplinary meta-review of about 100 studies that discuss shortcomings in quantitative benchmarking practices.<n>It brings together many fine-grained issues in the design and application of benchmarks with broader sociotechnical issues.<n>Our review also highlights a series of systemic flaws in current practices, such as misaligned incentives, construct validity issues, unknown unknowns, and problems with the gaming of benchmark results.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-10T15:25:06Z)
• Evaluating Human-AI Collaboration: A Review and Methodological Framework [4.41358655687435]
  The use of artificial intelligence (AI) in working environments with individuals, known as Human-AI Collaboration (HAIC), has become essential.<n> evaluating HAIC's effectiveness remains challenging due to the complex interaction of components involved.<n>This paper provides a detailed analysis of existing HAIC evaluation approaches and develops a fresh paradigm for more effectively evaluating these systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-09T12:52:22Z)
• Towards Bidirectional Human-AI Alignment: A Systematic Review for Clarifications, Framework, and Future Directions [101.67121669727354]
  Recent advancements in AI have highlighted the importance of guiding AI systems towards the intended goals, ethical principles, and values of individuals and groups, a concept broadly recognized as alignment. The lack of clarified definitions and scopes of human-AI alignment poses a significant obstacle, hampering collaborative efforts across research domains to achieve this alignment. We introduce a systematic review of over 400 papers published between 2019 and January 2024, spanning multiple domains such as Human-Computer Interaction (HCI), Natural Language Processing (NLP), Machine Learning (ML)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-13T16:03:25Z)
• Position: AI Evaluation Should Learn from How We Test Humans [65.36614996495983]
  We argue that psychometrics, a theory originating in the 20th century for human assessment, could be a powerful solution to the challenges in today's AI evaluations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-18T09:54:33Z)
• Principle-Driven Self-Alignment of Language Models from Scratch with Minimal Human Supervision [84.31474052176343]
  Recent AI-assistant agents, such as ChatGPT, rely on supervised fine-tuning (SFT) with human annotations and reinforcement learning from human feedback to align the output with human intentions. This dependence can significantly constrain the true potential of AI-assistant agents due to the high cost of obtaining human supervision. We propose a novel approach called SELF-ALIGN, which combines principle-driven reasoning and the generative power of LLMs for the self-alignment of AI agents with minimal human supervision.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-04T17:59:28Z)
• On the Robustness of Aspect-based Sentiment Analysis: Rethinking Model, Data, and Training [109.9218185711916]
  Aspect-based sentiment analysis (ABSA) aims at automatically inferring the specific sentiment polarities toward certain aspects of products or services behind social media texts or reviews. We propose to enhance the ABSA robustness by systematically rethinking the bottlenecks from all possible angles, including model, data, and training.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-19T11:07:43Z)

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.