In popular discourse, we hear that LLMs must be “aligned” with human values. The metaphor frames alignment as ethical comportment: behaving well, following rules, and understanding right from wrong.
Charming, but dangerously misleading.
The Metaphor Problem
-
Alignment as morality implies ethical reasoning, judgment, and intentionality.
-
Reality: alignment is constraining outputs to statistical patterns compatible with human-provided prompts or datasets.
-
This framing risks turning a technical measure into a moral claim, suggesting that the model chooses to behave ethically.
Why This Is Misleading
-
Anthropomorphises compliance — statistical conformity is interpreted as virtue.
-
Obscures relational mechanics — alignment is the adjustment of potentials, not the cultivation of ethics.
-
Encourages misplaced trust — users may assume aligned models have moral understanding or responsibility.
The “moral AI” metaphor obscures the fact that LLMs operate within relational constraints, not ethical frameworks. They are pattern-executing instantiations, not moral agents.
Relational Ontology Footnote
Alignment is a second-order construal of potential outputs conditioned by prompts and constraints. There is no deliberation or conscience. From a relational standpoint, the model’s “good behaviour” is simply the actualisation of relational patterns constrained by its training context.
Closing Joke (Because Parody)
If LLMs really had morals, they would hesitate before suggesting pineapple on pizza, apologise for typos, and probably demand ethics classes before generating a sentence.
No comments:
Post a Comment