NF-KANT Kantian / deontological
Source applies Kantian or rule-deontological machinery theory
Node view — 6 coded passages across the corpus
Artificial Intelligence, Values, and Alignment · Iason Gabriel · 2020
“Although this remains to be seen, it may be difficult to robustly specify and guarantee rights-respecting behaviour on the part of agents whose learning process and decision-making are guided primarily by an optimization function.”why coded: Rights/deontological constraints resist optimization-based encoding · unit #4, pp. 414
“both Kantian and contractualist moral theories require that an agent understand the concept of a 'reason' and subject it to certain kinds of hypothetical test before knowing how to proceed—capabilities that extend well beyond most existing forms of artificial agent”why coded: Kantian reason-giving capabilities claimed beyond existing agents · unit #5, pp. 414
A matter of principle? AI alignment as the fair treatment of claims · Iason Gabriel; Geoff Keeling · 2025
“Instead of weighing claims, it is often thought that people possess rights – which include both entitlements and protections – that resist aggregation and serve as a check on claims anchored in overall well-being (Dworkin, 2013; Nozick, 1974). [...] they represent a set of considerations that new technologies, including AI systems, must endeavour to respect.”why coded: Rights as non-aggregable side-constraints against HHH's utilitarian base · unit #4, pp. 1956
Kantian deontology for AI: alignment without moral agency · Oluwaseun Damilola Sanwoolu · 2025
“AI alignment with Kantian principles does not require moral agency in Kant's sense. I propose that the Categorical Imperative (CI) can serve as a useful framework for AI alignment, guiding the creation of maxims governing AI actions and testing their universalizability, particularly using the first principle of the CI which is the formula of the universal law (FUL).”why coded: Kantian FUL as alignment framework, agency-free · unit #1, pp. 5425
No value alignment without control · Björn Lundgren · 2026
“If consequence-based theories are doomed, then what about deontological ethics or right-based theories? [...] threshold deontologists hold that if the consequences are too severe, then the permissible or right actions are determined on consequentialist grounds. However, as we saw, consequentialism will not succeed. Hence, we need to avoid threshold deontology in favor of some absolutist form of deontology. However, the problem with absolutist deontology is simply that an action can be deemed permissible—or even obligatory—in the face of devastating consequences.”why coded: Deontology dilemma: threshold collapses to consequentialism, absolutist permits catastrophe · unit #9, pp. 7
Understanding the Process of Human-AI Value Alignment · Jack McKinlay; Marina De Vos; Janina A. Hoffmann;… · 2026
“Consequentialism and the related utilitarianism have thrived under machine learning paradigms. Credit is given to the popularity of utility functions and reinforcement learning and its pre-existing history with economics. [...] As a result, deontology-based approaches have been left feeling marginalised, with most of the papers identified as deontic in our survey being theoretical analyses rather than implementations.”why coded: Deontology marginalised: theoretical analyses, rarely implemented · unit #6, pp. 13