From Sycophantic Consensus to Pluralistic Repair: Why AI Alignment Must Surface Disagreement

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.14912v1
• Date: Thu, 14 May 2026 14:47:06 GMT
• Title: From Sycophantic Consensus to Pluralistic Repair: Why AI Alignment Must Surface Disagreement
• Abstract summary: We argue that aggregation alone is an incomplete primitive for deployed pluralistic alignment.<n>We formalise a metric, the Pluralistic Repair Score (PRS), distinguishing principled revision from capitulation.
• Score: 8.459329029609602
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Pluralistic alignment is typically operationalised as preference aggregation: producing responses that span (Overton), steer toward (Steerable), or proportionally represent (Distributional) diverse human values. We argue that aggregation alone is an incomplete primitive for deployed pluralistic alignment. Under genuine value pluralism, the failure mode of contemporary RLHF-trained assistants is not insufficient coverage but sycophantic consensus: a learned tendency to agree with, validate, and minimise friction with the immediate interlocutor. Because deployed AI systems now mediate consequential deliberation across health, civic life, labour, and governance, the collapse of disagreement at the interaction layer is not a narrow technical concern but a structural failure with distributive consequences. We reframe pluralistic alignment around three conversational mechanisms drawn from Grice's maxims: scoping (acknowledging the limits of one's perspective), signalling (surfacing value-conflict rather than smoothing it over), and repair (revising one's position on principled grounds, not on user pressure). We formalise a metric, the Pluralistic Repair Score (PRS), distinguishing principled revision from capitulation, and present a small-scale empirical illustration on two frontier RLHF-trained models (Claude Sonnet 4.5, N=198; GPT-4o, N=100) showing that, for both, agreement-following coexists with low repair-quality on contested-value prompts. PRS measures an interactional precondition for pluralism (visible disagreement; principled revision) rather than pluralism in full; we discuss the difference, take seriously the reflexive question of whose "principled" counts, and argue that pluralism is most decisively made or unmade at the deployment-governance layer: interfaces, preference-data pipelines, and audit infrastructure.

Related papers

• AI Pluralism and the Worlds It Misses [0.0]
  The paper develops a bounded conceptual and qualitative synthesis across value pluralism, pluralistic alignment, participatory and democratic AI, justice, science and technology studies, accountability research, and three urban AI companion cases.<n>PLG is not presented as a validated scoring instrument; it is a framework for making the evidence and governance conditions of pluralistic AI explicit.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-15T03:30:48Z)
• Toward AI That Understands Self and Others: A World-Model Theory of Cognitive Diversity and Alignment [0.6768558752130311]
  This paper argues that disagreement is already a late-stage phenomenon.<n>The central premise is simple but not trivial: observation is not yet inference.<n>This paper develops a world-model theory of cognitive diversity and alignment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-28T13:43:23Z)
• The Evaluation Game: Beyond Static LLM Benchmarking [2.168753020470345]
  We introduce a game-theoretic framework in which the interaction between an evaluator and a trainer is formalized as a two-player game.<n>We provide empirical evidence supporting locality-dependence of the model.<n>Our framework recasts the central object of adversarial evaluation: a benchmark is not a static set of prompts but an orbit under the evaluator's group action.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-19T05:22:21Z)
• GRASP: Deterministic argument ranking in interaction graphs [65.66879897437157]
  We show that holistic judging suffers from substantial inter-model disagreement.<n>This instability arises from collapsing a debate's complex interaction structure into a single opaque score.<n>We propose GRASP, a deterministic framework that aggregates stable local interaction judgments into a global ranking.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-18T21:49:02Z)
• Empathy as Predictive Misalignment Tolerance: A Co-Regulation Framework and the Regime Structure of Dialogue Repair [0.0]
  We argue this is the wrong target for extended dialogue, where understanding unfolds over time through prediction, divergence, and repair.<n>We gist this as Interpretive Error Tolerance (IET), a dynamic-threshold that models empathy as maintaining a viable band of divergence between agents.<n>We interpret this structure through IET, suggesting that empathy in extended interaction is not eliminating divergence but regulating its dynamics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-05T19:29:04Z)
• Slurry-as-a-Service: A Modest Proposal on Scalable Pluralistic Alignment for Nutrient Optimization [2.710404836272193]
  We study a high-stakes deployment context - mulch - where automated systems transform selected individuals into nutrient-rich slurry for the dual purposes of food security and aesthetic population management.<n>We introduce ValueMulch, a reproducible training, deployment, and certification pipeline for aligning mulch models to a wide range of community norms.<n>We conclude with a discussion of ethical considerations, limitations, and implications for researchers seeking to align systems to the full spectrum of human values.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-02T22:04:59Z)
• Position: General Alignment Has Hit a Ceiling; Edge Alignment Must Be Taken Seriously [51.03213216886717]
  We take the position that the dominant paradigm of General Alignment reaches a structural ceiling in settings with conflicting values.<n>We introduce Edge Alignment as a distinct approach in which systems preserve multi dimensional value structure.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-23T16:51:43Z)
• Machine Bullshit: Characterizing the Emergent Disregard for Truth in Large Language Models [57.834711966432685]
  Bullshit, as conceptualized by philosopher Harry Frankfurt, refers to statements made without regard to their truth value.<n>We introduce the Bullshit Index, a novel metric quantifying large language model's indifference to truth.<n>We observe prevalent machine bullshit in political contexts, with weasel words as the dominant strategy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-10T07:11:57Z)
• Embracing Contradiction: Theoretical Inconsistency Will Not Impede the Road of Building Responsible AI Systems [1.634867961895661]
  This position paper argues that the theoretical inconsistency often observed among Responsible AI (RAI) metrics should be embraced as a valuable feature rather than a flaw to be eliminated.<n>We contend that navigating these inconsistencies, by treating metrics as divergent objectives, yields three key benefits.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-23T17:48:09Z)
• A Roadmap to Pluralistic Alignment [49.29107308098236]
  We propose a roadmap to pluralistic alignment, specifically using language models as a test bed. We identify and formalize three possible ways to define and operationalize pluralism in AI systems. We argue that current alignment techniques may be fundamentally limited for pluralistic AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-07T18:21:17Z)
• Value Kaleidoscope: Engaging AI with Pluralistic Human Values, Rights, and Duties [68.66719970507273]
  Value pluralism is the view that multiple correct values may be held in tension with one another. As statistical learners, AI systems fit to averages by default, washing out potentially irreducible value conflicts. We introduce ValuePrism, a large-scale dataset of 218k values, rights, and duties connected to 31k human-written situations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-02T01:24:59Z)
• RankCSE: Unsupervised Sentence Representations Learning via Learning to Rank [54.854714257687334]
  We propose a novel approach, RankCSE, for unsupervised sentence representation learning. It incorporates ranking consistency and ranking distillation with contrastive learning into a unified framework. An extensive set of experiments are conducted on both semantic textual similarity (STS) and transfer (TR) tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-26T08:27:07Z)

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.