Reflections on Artificial Intelligence Alignment with Human Values: a phenomenological Perspective.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The need for a systematic approach to work with artificial intelligence (AI) is current and rapidly growing. It is important that Information Systems researchers get ahead of public sentiment and be able to provide proactive commentary about the current state-of-the-art, as well as solutions for future systems. One critical question is how can we ensure value alignment between AI and human values through AI operations from design to use? For the purposes of this discussion, we adopt the phenomenological theories of material values and technological mediation to be that beginning step. In this paper, we firstly analyze the AI phenomenon from selected resources from the top IS research outlets (basket of 8 journals and 5 AI journals in IS). Secondly, we briefly present what are material values and technological mediation and reflect on the AI value alignment principle through the lenses of these theories. Supported by these new understandings and reflections, we propose to build a common principle of human values to understand the AI value alignment principle through phenomenological theories. The paper contributes the unique aspect of material values to the discourse within current AI research.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".