Comparing Socio-technical Design Principles with Guidelines for Human-centered AI

Sociotechnical alignment concerns the social desirability of AI behavior and is thus inherently normative, not merely technical. While NLP research increasingly addresses its technical aspects, it often leaves underspecified what such "social desirability" entails. We argue that this reflects a fundamental gap: the absence of a systematic way to specify how sociotechnical alignment defines, justifies, and evaluates socially desirable AI behavior. To address this gap, we introduce a human-centered framework for specifying sociotechnical alignment. We draw on social-scientific accounts of sociobehavioral desirability to ground the basis for behavioral desirability judgments and use this framework to analyze how alignment is specified in practice. Our systematic literature review identifies recurring patterns: normative concepts grounding desirability judgments are often unspecified or conflated with alignment targets for (desired) system behavior, target populations are underdefined, and design choices are rarely theoretically justified. These findings point to a lack of conceptual specificity that limits cumulative progress. We therefore offer recommendations that link social-scientific frameworks to alignment design choices, supporting more conceptually precise approaches to sociotechnical alignment.

Current AI safety discourse still focuses disproportionately on visible failures, including obvious harms, dramatic misuse, and hypothetical catastrophic scenarios. That focus is incomplete. In deployed systems, many of the most consequential failures are quieter: plausible rather than spectacular, distributed across components rather than localized in a single output, and normalized by workflows before they are recognized as hazards. We argue that a central safety challenge in modern AI systems is increasingly not only whether a model emits a harmful response, but whether the broader socio-technical system preserves the conditions under which errors remain visible, contestable, containable, and recoverable. We propose a five-layer framework for diagnosing these hidden risks: (1) epistemic integrity, concerning whether evidence and uncertainty are represented honestly enough to support calibrated reliance; (2) control integrity, concerning whether authority, permissions, and action boundaries remain robust under attack and optimization; (3) temporal integrity, concerning whether safety holds across sessions, memory updates, and deployment drift; (4) organizational integrity, concerning whether institutions retain the capacity to audit, assign responsibility, and intervene effectively; and (5) ecosystem integrity, concerning whether AI systems preserve rather than erode the information environment on which future oversight depends. Across these layers, we identify under-recognized risk patterns, including overreliance, uncertainty and legitimacy laundering in retrieval, prompt injection, reward hacking, memory poisoning, evaluation deception, fictional human oversight, synthetic evidence pollution, and model collapse. We conclude with design and governance recommendations and a research agenda for shifting AI safety from model-centric evaluation toward socio-technical reliability.

This paper examines the two concepts of digital humanism and evolutionary design. The aim is to identify and highlight potential common structures, synergies, and challenges. How should and can technical systems be designed, and what implications does this have for the design of our environment? In light of the current debate surrounding artificial intelligence, this paper aims to serve as a preliminary study to help better understand the two concepts of digital humanism and evolutionary design within the context of human-centered technological development. Following a brief introduction, the two concepts of Digital Humanism and Evolutionary Design are presented and graphically visualized. The terms of freedom and responsibility in human decision-making, conviviality, and subjectivity are discussed, along with examples illustrating the distinction between human and artificial intelligence (Turing Test and Chinese Room). The various concepts of evolutionary design (e.g., co-evolutionary or sustainable software development, clean code, or green IT) and Gilbert Simondon's concept of the "open machine" are introduced. The interdependencies between functional specialization and open technology development are highlighted. Both concepts share similar structures. In joint cooperation, they can lead to positive effects and mutual synergies. Significant differences lie in the areas of autonomy and determination in decision-making, as well as in genuine and simulated subjectivity. Open technology development is also currently suffering from the functional specialization of software and AI applications due to a purely market- and consumer-oriented approach. Even optimizations for energy efficiency in sustainable software development lead to greater specialization and thus also have a detrimental effect on open and quality-oriented technology development.