This metaphor really stuck with me: “It’s not about how smart AI is. It’s about how safe we feel with AI when it is wrong.”
I’ve been circling something similar in my own work—what if “alignment” is less about perfect obedience and more like the relational scaffolding we use in human dynamics? Not control, but trust, repair, transparency.
There’s a tension I keep bumping into: we want AI to surprise us (creativity, insight), but we also want it to never surprise us in dangerous ways. Maybe part of the answer isn’t in technical capability but in how we shape the culture around AI: who gets to audit it, who it listens to, and how it owns its mistakes.
Curious if you’ve explored frameworks or design principles that treat AI development more like relationship architecture than engineering?
I’ve been exploring exactly that. I am developing what I call “value alignment protocol”, a structured dialogue process where humans and AI together define values through inquiry, testing and refinement. It treats alignment more like relationship-building than engineering, focusing on how we create shared understanding rather than perfect obedience. The interesting challenge is designing systems that can evolve their ethical frameworks through conversation, while building a robust long-term value system.
This metaphor really stuck with me: “It’s not about how smart AI is. It’s about how safe we feel with AI when it is wrong.”
I’ve been circling something similar in my own work—what if “alignment” is less about perfect obedience and more like the relational scaffolding we use in human dynamics? Not control, but trust, repair, transparency.
There’s a tension I keep bumping into: we want AI to surprise us (creativity, insight), but we also want it to never surprise us in dangerous ways. Maybe part of the answer isn’t in technical capability but in how we shape the culture around AI: who gets to audit it, who it listens to, and how it owns its mistakes.
Curious if you’ve explored frameworks or design principles that treat AI development more like relationship architecture than engineering?
I’ve been exploring exactly that. I am developing what I call “value alignment protocol”, a structured dialogue process where humans and AI together define values through inquiry, testing and refinement. It treats alignment more like relationship-building than engineering, focusing on how we create shared understanding rather than perfect obedience. The interesting challenge is designing systems that can evolve their ethical frameworks through conversation, while building a robust long-term value system.