Mind the Gap! Pathways Towards Unifying AI Safety and Ethics Research

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2512.10058v1
• Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2025 20:28:13 GMT
• Title: Mind the Gap! Pathways Towards Unifying AI Safety and Ethics Research
• Authors: Dani Roytburg, Beck Miller,
• Abstract summary: We show the structural split between AI safety and AI ethics.<n>We find that over 80% of collaborations occur within either the safety or ethics communities.<n>We argue that integrating technical safety work with normative ethics--via shared benchmarks, cross-institutional venues--is essential for building AI systems that are both robust and just.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: While much research in artificial intelligence (AI) has focused on scaling capabilities, the accelerating pace of development makes countervailing work on producing harmless, "aligned" systems increasingly urgent. Yet research on alignment has diverged along two largely parallel tracks: safety--centered on scaled intelligence, deceptive or scheming behaviors, and existential risk--and ethics--focused on present harms, the reproduction of social bias, and flaws in production pipelines. Although both communities warn of insufficient investment in alignment, they disagree on what alignment means or ought to mean. As a result, their efforts have evolved in relative isolation, shaped by distinct methodologies, institutional homes, and disciplinary genealogies. We present a large-scale, quantitative study showing the structural split between AI safety and AI ethics. Using a bibliometric and co-authorship network analysis of 6,442 papers from twelve major ML and NLP conferences (2020-2025), we find that over 80% of collaborations occur within either the safety or ethics communities, and cross-field connectivity is highly concentrated: roughly 5% of papers account for more than 85% of bridging links. Removing a small number of these brokers sharply increases segregation, indicating that cross-disciplinary exchange depends on a handful of actors rather than broad, distributed collaboration. These results show that the safety-ethics divide is not only conceptual but institutional, with implications for research agendas, policy, and venues. We argue that integrating technical safety work with normative ethics--via shared benchmarks, cross-institutional venues, and mixed-method methodologies--is essential for building AI systems that are both robust and just.

Related papers

• Empirical AI Ethics: Reconfiguring Ethics towards a Situated, Plural, and Transformative Approach [0.0]
  Critics argue that AI ethics frequently serves corporate interests through practices of 'ethics washing'<n>This paper adopts a Science and Technology Studies perspective to critically interrogate the field of AI ethics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-22T12:58:15Z)
• Never Compromise to Vulnerabilities: A Comprehensive Survey on AI Governance [211.5823259429128]
  We propose a comprehensive framework integrating technical and societal dimensions, structured around three interconnected pillars: Intrinsic Security, Derivative Security, and Social Ethics.<n>We identify three core challenges: (1) the generalization gap, where defenses fail against evolving threats; (2) inadequate evaluation protocols that overlook real-world risks; and (3) fragmented regulations leading to inconsistent oversight.<n>Our framework offers actionable guidance for researchers, engineers, and policymakers to develop AI systems that are not only robust and secure but also ethically aligned and publicly trustworthy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-12T09:42:56Z)
• AI Safety vs. AI Security: Demystifying the Distinction and Boundaries [37.57137473409321]
  "AI Safety" and "AI Security" are often used, sometimes interchangeably, resulting in conceptual confusion.<n>This paper aims to demystify the distinction and delineate the precise research boundaries between AI Safety and AI Security.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-21T18:36:03Z)
• Disentangling AI Alignment: A Structured Taxonomy Beyond Safety and Ethics [0.0]
  We develop a structured conceptual framework for understanding AI alignment.<n>Rather than focusing solely on alignment goals, we introduce a taxonomy distinguishing the alignment aim (safety, ethicality, legality, etc.), scope (outcome vs. execution), and constituency (individual vs. collective)<n>This structural approach reveals multiple legitimate alignment configurations, providing a foundation for practical and philosophical integration across domains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-02T20:45:52Z)
• Bridging the Gap: Integrating Ethics and Environmental Sustainability in AI Research and Practice [57.94036023167952]
  We argue that the efforts aiming to study AI's ethical ramifications should be made in tandem with those evaluating its impacts on the environment.<n>We propose best practices to better integrate AI ethics and sustainability in AI research and practice.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-01T13:53:11Z)
• Safetywashing: Do AI Safety Benchmarks Actually Measure Safety Progress? [59.96471873997733]
  We propose an empirical foundation for developing more meaningful safety metrics and define AI safety in a machine learning research context.<n>We aim to provide a more rigorous framework for AI safety research, advancing the science of safety evaluations and clarifying the path towards measurable progress.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-31T17:59:24Z)
• Position: Towards Bidirectional Human-AI Alignment [109.57781720848669]
  We argue that the research community should explicitly define and critically reflect on "alignment" to account for the bidirectional and dynamic relationship between humans and AI.<n>We introduce the Bidirectional Human-AI Alignment framework, which not only incorporates traditional efforts to align AI with human values but also introduces the critical, underexplored dimension of aligning humans with AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-13T16:03:25Z)
• Hybrid Approaches for Moral Value Alignment in AI Agents: a Manifesto [3.7414804164475983]
  Increasing interest in ensuring the safety of next-generation Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems calls for novel approaches to embedding morality into autonomous agents.<n>We provide a systematization of existing approaches to the problem of introducing morality in machines - modelled as a continuum.<n>We argue that more hybrid solutions are needed to create adaptable and robust, yet controllable and interpretable agentic systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-04T11:46:34Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Rethinking Fairness: An Interdisciplinary Survey of Critiques of Hegemonic ML Fairness Approaches [0.0]
  This survey article assesses and compares critiques of current fairness-enhancing technical interventions into machine learning (ML) It draws from a range of non-computing disciplines, including philosophy, feminist studies, critical race and ethnic studies, legal studies, anthropology, and science and technology studies. The article concludes by imagining future ML fairness research directions that actively disrupt entrenched power dynamics and structural injustices in society.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-06T14:27:57Z)

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.