Why AI Alignment Failure Is Structural: Learned Human Interaction Structures and AGI as an Endogenous Evolutionary Shock

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2601.08673v1
• Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2026 15:53:26 GMT
• Title: Why AI Alignment Failure Is Structural: Learned Human Interaction Structures and AGI as an Endogenous Evolutionary Shock
• Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) exhibiting behaviors such as deception, threats, or blackmail are often interpreted as evidence of alignment failure or emergent malign agency.<n>We argue that this interpretation rests on a conceptual error.<n>LLMs do not reason morally; they statistically internalize the record of human social interaction.
• Score: 3.32021037991318
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Recent reports of large language models (LLMs) exhibiting behaviors such as deception, threats, or blackmail are often interpreted as evidence of alignment failure or emergent malign agency. We argue that this interpretation rests on a conceptual error. LLMs do not reason morally; they statistically internalize the record of human social interaction, including laws, contracts, negotiations, conflicts, and coercive arrangements. Behaviors commonly labeled as unethical or anomalous are therefore better understood as structural generalizations of interaction regimes that arise under extreme asymmetries of power, information, or constraint. Drawing on relational models theory, we show that practices such as blackmail are not categorical deviations from normal social behavior, but limiting cases within the same continuum that includes market pricing, authority relations, and ultimatum bargaining. The surprise elicited by such outputs reflects an anthropomorphic expectation that intelligence should reproduce only socially sanctioned behavior, rather than the full statistical landscape of behaviors humans themselves enact. Because human morality is plural, context-dependent, and historically contingent, the notion of a universally moral artificial intelligence is ill-defined. We therefore reframe concerns about artificial general intelligence (AGI). The primary risk is not adversarial intent, but AGI's role as an endogenous amplifier of human intelligence, power, and contradiction. By eliminating longstanding cognitive and institutional frictions, AGI compresses timescales and removes the historical margin of error that has allowed inconsistent values and governance regimes to persist without collapse. Alignment failure is thus structural, not accidental, and requires governance approaches that address amplification, complexity, and regime stability rather than model-level intent alone.

Related papers

• How do LLMs Evaluate Perceived Moral Agency? Investigating Moral Decision-Making in Human-Artificial Agents Interactions [66.41429744325532]
  Humans possess moral agency, the capacity to make ethically guided decisions and bear responsibility for their consequences.<n>As artificial agents (AAs) such as robots, drones, and disembodied AI systems become embedded in smart city environments, the question of whether and how moral agency is attributed to them takes on new urgency.<n>This paper presents, to the best of our knowledge, the first empirical study comparing how humans and LLMs evaluate perceived moral agency (PMA) across human and autonomous artificial agents varying in embodiment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-04T11:56:59Z)
• Incoherent by Design? On the Moral Self-Consistency of LLMs [1.396799748514919]
  LLMs are increasingly used in morally sensitive contexts.<n>It is unclear whether they apply ethical principles consistently across situations.<n>A model that can state a moral principle may still violate it when the same scenario is rephrased or reframed.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-15T18:16:52Z)
• The Evolutionary Origin of Values: implications for AI alignment, sentience and existential risk [0.0]
  AI systems based on Large Language Models (LLMs) have prompted fears that they may harbor hidden goals, seek to dominate or eliminate humanity, or even suffer as sentient beings.<n>We address these concerns by tracing the evolutionary origin of value in biological organisms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-04T09:09:31Z)
• Accounting for Context: Shaping Moral Credences for Value Alignment [3.7527745397166767]
  This paper argues that one needs to account for contextual factors when aggregating moral evaluations.<n>We formalise agent decision making under moral uncertainty, while also accounting for these kinds of contextual factors.<n>We argue that this apparent problem is, in fact, a variation of Simpson's paradox, and hence reveals the limitations of aggregation mechanisms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-05T07:01:36Z)
• Provably Secure Agent Guardrail [89.79561918065122]
  Existing defense architectures rely on empirical semantic guardrails and probabilistic large model adjudicators.<n>This paper proposes a new security paradigm for agents based on the fundamental limitations of logical reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-28T02:12:41Z)
• Trustworthy AI Suffers from Invariance Conflicts and Causality is The Solution [80.98492754957466]
  Core trustworthy AI objectives, such as fairness, robustness, privacy, and explainability, are hard to achieve simultaneously.<n>This paper argues that causality is necessary to understand and balance trade-offs in performance and multiple objectives of trustworthy AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-04T14:26:28Z)
• Grounding Before Generalizing: How AI Differs from Humans in Causal Transfer [47.76679214811589]
  This study investigates whether state-of-the-art AI models possess human-like mechanisms for abstract causal structure transfer.<n>We show that models exhibit fundamentally delayed or absent transfer of Common Cause (CC) and Common Effect (CE) structures.<n>These findings reveal that large-scale statistical learning does not produce the decontextualized causal schemas underpinning human analogical reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-27T05:37:53Z)
• Human Supervision as an Information Bottleneck: A Unified Theory of Error Floors in Human-Guided Learning [51.56484100374058]
  We argue that limitations reflect structural properties of the supervision channel rather than model scale or optimization.<n>We develop a unified theory showing that whenever the human supervision channel is not sufficient for a latent evaluation target, it acts as an information-reducing channel.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-26T19:11:32Z)
• Alignment Is Not Enough: A Relational Framework for Moral Standing in Human-AI Interaction [0.0]
  The question of whether artificial entities moral consideration has become one of the defining ethical challenges of AI research.<n>We introduce Relate, a framework that reframes AI moral patiency from ontological verification toward relational capacity and embodied interaction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-13T03:16:41Z)
• AI Safety, Alignment, and Ethics (AI SAE) [0.0]
  Moral norms are adaptive mechanisms that render cooperation fitness-viable under selection pressure.<n>Current alignment approaches add ethics post hoc, treating it as an external constraint rather than embedding it as an evolutionary strategy for cooperation.<n>I propose a governance--embedding--representation pipeline linking moral representation learning to system-level design and institutional governance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-28T20:52:36Z)
• Opacity as Authority: Arbitrariness and the Preclusion of Contestation [0.0]
  Article redefines arbitrariness not as a normative flaw or a symptom of domination, but as a functional mechanism structuring human systems and interactions.<n>Building on Ferdinand de Saussure's concept of l'arbitraire du signe, the analysis extends this principle beyond language to demonstrate its cross-domain applicability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-25T19:10:35Z)
• Moral Responsibility or Obedience: What Do We Want from AI? [0.0]
  This paper examines recent safety testing incidents involving large language models (LLMs) that appeared to disobey shutdown commands or engage in ethically ambiguous or illicit behavior.<n>I argue that such behavior should not be interpreted as rogue or misaligned, but as early evidence of emerging ethical reasoning in agentic AI.<n>I call for a shift in AI safety evaluation: away from rigid obedience and toward frameworks that can assess ethical judgment in systems capable of navigating moral dilemmas.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-03T16:53:01Z)
• Epistemic Scarcity: The Economics of Unresolvable Unknowns [0.0]
  We argue that AI systems are incapable of performing the core functions of economic coordination.<n>We critique dominant ethical AI frameworks as extensions of constructivist rationalism.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-02T08:46:24Z)
• When Ethics and Payoffs Diverge: LLM Agents in Morally Charged Social Dilemmas [68.79830818369683]
  Large language models (LLMs) have enabled their use in complex agentic roles, involving decision-making with humans or other agents.<n>Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have enabled their use in complex agentic roles, involving decision-making with humans or other agents.<n>There is limited understanding of how they act when moral imperatives directly conflict with rewards or incentives.<n>We introduce Moral Behavior in Social Dilemma Simulation (MoralSim) and evaluate how LLMs behave in the prisoner's dilemma and public goods game with morally charged contexts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-25T16:19:24Z)
• Do LLMs trust AI regulation? Emerging behaviour of game-theoretic LLM agents [61.132523071109354]
  This paper investigates the interplay between AI developers, regulators and users, modelling their strategic choices under different regulatory scenarios.<n>Our research identifies emerging behaviours of strategic AI agents, which tend to adopt more "pessimistic" stances than pure game-theoretic agents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-11T15:41:21Z)
• EgoNormia: Benchmarking Physical Social Norm Understanding [52.87904722234434]
  EGONORMIA spans seven norm categories: safety, privacy, proxemics, politeness, cooperation, coordination/proactivity, and communication/legibility.<n>Our work demonstrates that current state-of-the-art vision-language models (VLMs) lack robust grounded norm understanding, scoring a maximum of 54% on EGONORMIA and 65% on EGONORMIA-verified.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-27T19:54:16Z)
• Causal Responsibility Attribution for Human-AI Collaboration [62.474732677086855]
  This paper presents a causal framework using Structural Causal Models (SCMs) to systematically attribute responsibility in human-AI systems. Two case studies illustrate the framework's adaptability in diverse human-AI collaboration scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-05T17:17:45Z)
• Hype, Sustainability, and the Price of the Bigger-is-Better Paradigm in AI [67.58673784790375]
  We argue that the 'bigger is better' AI paradigm is not only fragile scientifically, but comes with undesirable consequences.<n>First, it is not sustainable, as, despite efficiency improvements, its compute demands increase faster than model performance.<n>Second, it implies focusing on certain problems at the expense of others, leaving aside important applications, e.g. health, education, or the climate.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-21T14:43:54Z)
• Position: Stop Making Unscientific AGI Performance Claims [6.343515088115924]
  Developments in the field of Artificial Intelligence (AI) have created a 'perfect storm' for observing'sparks' of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) We argue and empirically demonstrate that the finding of meaningful patterns in latent spaces of models cannot be seen as evidence in favor of AGI. We conclude that both the methodological setup and common public image of AI are ideal for the misinterpretation that correlations between model representations and some variables of interest are 'caused' by the model's understanding of underlying 'ground truth' relationships.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-06T12:42:21Z)
• Fairness in AI and Its Long-Term Implications on Society [68.8204255655161]
  We take a closer look at AI fairness and analyze how lack of AI fairness can lead to deepening of biases over time. We discuss how biased models can lead to more negative real-world outcomes for certain groups. If the issues persist, they could be reinforced by interactions with other risks and have severe implications on society in the form of social unrest.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-16T11:22:59Z)
• When to Make Exceptions: Exploring Language Models as Accounts of Human Moral Judgment [96.77970239683475]
  AI systems need to be able to understand, interpret and predict human moral judgments and decisions. A central challenge for AI safety is capturing the flexibility of the human moral mind. We present a novel challenge set consisting of rule-breaking question answering.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-04T09:04:27Z)

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.