AI Alignment and Fiduciary Obligation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.02660v1
• Date: Sat, 01 Aug 2026 14:18:36 GMT
• Title: AI Alignment and Fiduciary Obligation
• Abstract summary: I argue that fiduciary theory applies to extended AI assistant deployment.<n>I map four user-side risks of extended AI assistant deployment to the four duties and specify institutional measures that follow from discharging each duty.<n>The discussion complements existing approaches by grounding alignment criteria in obligations the developer owes the user, rather than in values the user-AI interaction should promote.
• Score: 0.01692139688032578
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Advanced AI assistants engage users in extended interactions across a widening range of roles, including advice, decision support, collaboration, learning, emotional support, and companionship among others. Current alignment efforts consider what alignment criteria should govern these relationships, drawing on moral traditions developed for human relationships such as bioethics, virtue ethics, care ethics, and relationship science. This paper considers AI alignment criteria in the user-AI-developer triad, since every user-AI interaction is mediated by a developer who exercises discretionary control over a system's behaviour, memory, and engagement parameters. Drawing on business ethics and legal scholarship, I argue that fiduciary theory applies to extended AI assistant deployment. On this basis, the four canonical fiduciary duties of loyalty, care, good faith, and candour can generate alignment criteria for the developer-user relationship. I map four user-side risks of extended AI assistant deployment to the four duties and specify institutional measures that follow from discharging each duty. The discussion complements existing approaches by grounding alignment criteria in obligations the developer owes the user, rather than in values the user-AI interaction should promote, and by showing that those obligations hold independently of any \textit{de facto} harm to users.

Related papers

• Unilateral Relationship Revision Power in Human-AI Companion Interaction [0.01692139688032578]
  I argue that human-AI companion interaction is a triadic structure in which the provider exercises control over the AI.<n>The analysis suggests that a central and underexplored problem in relational AI ethics is the structural arrangement of power over the human-AI interaction itself.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-24T15:18:48Z)
• 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)
• Beyond Abstract Compliance: Operationalising trust in AI as a moral relationship [1.0498094137943175]
  This paper proposes some expanded principles for trust in AI that can be incorporated into common development methods.<n>We draw on relational ethics and, in particular, African communitarian philosophies to foreground the nuances of inclusive, participatory processes.<n>Involving communities throughout the AI lifecycle can foster meaningful relationships with AI design and development teams.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-30T09:48:24Z)
• From Values to Frameworks: A Qualitative Study of Ethical Reasoning in Agentic AI Practitioners [0.0]
  Agentic artificial intelligence systems are autonomous technologies capable of pursuing complex goals with minimal human oversight.<n>While these systems promise major gains in productivity, they also raise new ethical challenges.<n>This paper investigates the ethical reasoning of AI practitioners through qualitative interviews centered on structured dilemmas in agentic AI deployment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-24T00:58:41Z)
• Taxonomy of User Needs and Actions [51.86289485979439]
  The growing ubiquity of conversational AI highlights the need for frameworks that capture users' instrumental goals and the situated, adaptive, and social practices through which they achieve them.<n>To address this gap, we introduce the Taxonomy of User Needs and Actions (TUNA), an empirically grounded framework developed through iterative qualitative analysis of 1193 human-AI conversations.<n> TUNA organizes user actions into a three-level hierarchy encompassing behaviors associated with information seeking, synthesis, procedural guidance, content creation, social interaction, and meta-conversation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-07T17:04:42Z)
• Resource Rational Contractualism Should Guide AI Alignment [69.07915246220985]
  Contractualist alignment proposes grounding decisions in agreements that diverse stakeholders would endorse.<n>We propose Resource-Rationalism: a framework where AI systems approximate the agreements rational parties would form.<n>An RRC-aligned agent would not only operate efficiently, but also be equipped to dynamically adapt to and interpret the ever-changing human social world.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-20T18:57:13Z)
• Technology as uncharted territory: Contextual integrity and the notion of AI as new ethical ground [51.85131234265026]
  I argue that efforts to promote responsible and ethical AI can inadvertently contribute to and seemingly legitimize this disregard for established contextual norms.<n>I question the current narrow prioritization in AI ethics of moral innovation over moral preservation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-06T15:36:13Z)
• AI Ethics by Design: Implementing Customizable Guardrails for Responsible AI Development [0.0]
  We propose a structure that integrates rules, policies, and AI assistants to ensure responsible AI behavior.<n>Our approach accommodates ethical pluralism, offering a flexible and adaptable solution for the evolving landscape of AI governance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-05T18:38:30Z)
• The Ethics of Advanced AI Assistants [53.89899371095332]
  This paper focuses on the opportunities and the ethical and societal risks posed by advanced AI assistants. We define advanced AI assistants as artificial agents with natural language interfaces, whose function is to plan and execute sequences of actions on behalf of a user. We consider the deployment of advanced assistants at a societal scale, focusing on cooperation, equity and access, misinformation, economic impact, the environment and how best to evaluate advanced AI assistants.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-24T23:18:46Z)
• Towards Responsible AI in Banking: Addressing Bias for Fair Decision-Making [69.44075077934914]
  "Responsible AI" emphasizes the critical nature of addressing biases within the development of a corporate culture. This thesis is structured around three fundamental pillars: understanding bias, mitigating bias, and accounting for bias. In line with open-source principles, we have released Bias On Demand and FairView as accessible Python packages.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-13T14:07:09Z)
• Designing for Responsible Trust in AI Systems: A Communication Perspective [56.80107647520364]
  We draw from communication theories and literature on trust in technologies to develop a conceptual model called MATCH. We highlight transparency and interaction as AI systems' affordances that present a wide range of trustworthiness cues to users. We propose a checklist of requirements to help technology creators identify appropriate cues to use.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-29T00:14:33Z)

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.