Possible Principles for Aligned Structure Learning Agents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper offers a road map for the development of scalable aligned artificial intelligence (AI) from first principle descriptions of natural intelligence. In brief, a possible path toward scalable aligned AI rests on enabling artificial agents to learn a good model of the world that includes a good model of our preferences. For this, the main objective is creating agents that learn to represent the world and other agents' world models, a problem that falls under structure learning (also known as causal representation learning or model discovery). We expose the structure learning and alignment problems with this goal in mind, as well as principles to guide us forward, synthesizing various ideas across mathematics, statistics, and cognitive science. We discuss the essential role of core knowledge, information geometry, and model reduction in structure learning and suggest core structural modules to learn a wide range of naturalistic worlds. We then outline a way toward aligned agents through structure learning and theory of mind. As an illustrative example, we mathematically sketch Asimov's laws of robotics, which prescribe agents to act cautiously to minimize the ill-being of other agents. We supplement this example by proposing refined approaches to alignment. These observations may guide the development of artificial intelligence in helping to scale existing, or design new, aligned structure learning systems.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".