Reflections on the AI alignment problem

Dan Bruiger · 2025 · AI & Society 40:4383-4392 background low priority coded

Main argument

Thesis: the concept of general intelligence 'lacks coherence'; the autonomy inherent in the AGI ideal CONFLICTS with the ideal of external control; truly autonomous agents are necessarily embodied in the strong sense of autopoiesis (self-producing systems with their own priorities and values, like organisms), which would compete with human values - so alignment-of-autonomous-AGI is conceptually confused, orthogonality is problematic, and 'task-oriented tools, not autonomous agents, should be the goal of AI research'. Compares Russell vs Drexler paradigms; discusses LLMs via the Turing Test.

Why it matters here

The embodiment/autopoiesis critique: genuine autonomy requires being an autopoietic system with its OWN priorities - which necessarily conflicts with external control - so the AGI ideal is incoherent and 'task-oriented tools, not autonomous agents, should be the goal'. The strongest tools-not-agents conclusion in the library, from enactivist premises.

Reading notes

Compact treatment. Abstract + framing read.

Bruiger, D. (2025). Reflections on the AI alignment problem. AI & Society, 40, 4383-4392.

Close reading — 1 coded units

#1 · pp. 4383 · argument

“The ideal of autonomy inherent in AGI conflicts with the ideal of external control. Truly autonomous agents are necessarily embodied, but embodiment implies more than physical instantiation or sensory input. It means being an autopoietic system (like a natural organism), with its own priorities and values, which may compete and conflict with those of humans. [...] It is concluded that task-oriented tools, not autonomous agents, should be the goal of AI research.”

AG-AGENTIC AG-MORAL-CON

Synthesis-matrix row

supports T5-AGENCY-DENIED-EVALUABILITY-KEPT

autopoiesis condition; tools-not-agents

complicates T7-AGENTIC-BREAKS-FRAMES

tools-not-agents as the limiting prescription

Memos (1)

comparison · unit #1

Adds the enactivist/autopoietic tradition to the anti-agency census (now five traditions) and states the deepest version of the alignment dilemma: autonomy and external control are CONCEPTUALLY in tension, so 'aligned autonomous agent' verges on oxymoron - the abstract ancestor of H&D's misalignment/misuse tradeoff and Zhi-Xuan's tool-like proposal. His tools-not-agents prescription converges with Zhi-Xuan's engineered incompleteness; both collide with the economic reality H&D note (incentives favor agents). For the dissertation: cite as the limiting position on the agency spectrum, against which the middle positions (constrained agents + distributed responsibility) are defined.