Abstract
Mainstream AI research emphasises capability growth and tolerates low failure rates when average-case performance is high. AI safety and alignment research has a different mission: to ensure that catastrophic failures never occur, under sparse evidence, adversarial dynamics, and fat-tailed risk. We argue that the two domains differ along two analytically independent axes---{\it capability profile}, demonstrating the absence of hazardous behaviours rather than the presence of positive capabilities, and {\it risk profile}, bounding worst-case outcomes under fat-tailed uncertainty rather than optimising average-case performance---and that mainstream epistemic practices are inadequate on both. Building on a structured synthesis grounded in a preregistered bibliometric baseline, we identify five cross-cutting gap dimensions in current alignment research, including the near-absence of institutionalised independent verification. To address these gaps, we propose {\sc ECAISA}, an Epistemic Code for AI Safety and Alignment comprising eight principles, a three-level scoring rubric, a four-level disclosure ladder that reconciles transparency with information-hazard and commercial-confidentiality constraints, a tiered applicability scheme, an information-hazard adjudication procedure, and seven anti-gaming mechanisms. {\sc ECAISA} does not certify that any AI system is safe; it constrains how safety-relevant research claims are documented, checked, and relied upon, with auditability rather than certification as its governance target.
Explore similar work
May 7, 2026cs.AI
A leading proposal for aligning artificial superintelligence (ASI) is to use AI agents to automate an increasing fraction of alignment research as capabilities improve. We argue that, even when research agents are not scheming to deliberately sabotage alignment work, this plan could produce compelling but catastrophically misleading safety assessments resulting in the unintentional deployment of misaligned AI. This could happen because alignment research involves many hard-to-supervise fuzzy tasks (tasks without clear evaluation criteria, for which human judgement is systematically flawed). Consequently, research outputs will contain systematic, undetected errors, and even correct outputs could be incorrectly aggregated into overconfident safety assessments. This problem is likely to be worse for automated alignment research than for human-generated alignment research for several reasons: 1) optimisation pressure means agent-generated mistakes are concentrated among those that human reviewers are least likely to catch; 2) agents are likely to produce errors that do not resemble human mistakes; 3) AI-generated alignment solutions may involve arguments humans cannot evaluate; and 4) shared weights, data and training processes may make AI outputs more correlated than human equivalents. Therefore, agents must be trained to reliably perform hard-to-supervise fuzzy tasks. Generalisation and scalable oversight are the leading candidates for achieving this but both face novel challenges in the context of automated alignment.
Aleksandr Bowkis, Marie Davidsen Buhl, Jacob Pfau +1
Aug 6, 2026cs.CY
Safety risks of AI are becoming increasingly evident in human interactions with AI technologies. The prominent approaches to evaluating these risks favor technical methods, such as model benchmarks and LLM simulations, often sidelining empirical research with human subjects. To examine this apparent gap in the acceptance of human research, we conduct an expert survey (n=93) and expert interviews (n=17) with AI Safety & Ethics (AISE) researchers from Technical, Sociotechnical, Governance, and Normative backgrounds. Our findings suggest that although there is a consensus that human research is valuable for generating evidence for AISE, its adoption and acceptance are constrained by perceived validity issues, tangible resource barriers, epistemic and personal preferences in methods, and infrastructural constraints from the broader research community. In particular, Technical researchers tend to value human research less and collaborate across disciplines less, suggesting an epistemic tension towards human methods. We propose recommendations for establishing the epistemic fit of human research within AISE and bridging the prohibitive limitations that researchers face, while avoiding performative 'human-washing'.
Jessica Y. Bo, Paula Akemi Aoyagui, Shalaleh Rismani +3
Aug 28, 2026cs.AI
Automating alignment research may accelerate progress toward aligned AI, but whether it does is hard to measure. Luckily, many alignment failures, such as deception, sycophancy, and jailbreaks, are already measurable by public benchmarks. We study whether automated alignment researchers (AARs) can post-train to mitigate alignment failures by proposing training methods and data to simultaneously optimize multiple safety benchmarks, while largely preserving general capability. Across 10 alignment failures, the strongest AAR methods significantly reduce the targeted alignment failures and generalize to a held-out benchmark, multi-turn behavioral audits, and models up to 4.7x larger than the target model. As a human baseline, 28 experienced researchers receive up to eight hours to develop one-shot methods for the same benchmarks, but their methods underperform the best AAR methods. Using human ideas as the AARs' initial research direction does not improve performance, suggesting current AARs may not need guidance from experienced researchers. These results suggest that automating alignment research on well-characterized failures may be practical in the near term.
Chen Yueh-Han, Jiaxin Wen, Jan Hendrik Kirchner