cs.CYJul 31, 2026

Optimising for Flourishing: Flourishing Metrics and Return on Flourishing as Success Criteria for Artificial Intelligence and Post-AGI Economic Systems

Authors: Keyun Ruan, Jonathan D. Teubner, John M. Bremen

Organizations: Human Flourishing Program, Institute for Quantitative Social Sciences, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA · WTW (Willis Towers Watson)

Abstract

Current evaluation frameworks for artificial intelligence focus mainly on capability, safety, and proxies such as adoption, engagement, efficiency, productivity, and financial return. These criteria are necessary but insufficient because they do not establish whether increasingly powerful systems improve or degrade human and planetary well-being. Through an integrative conceptual synthesis, we argue that human flourishing should serve as a primary success criterion for artificial intelligence, the global race to develop increasingly capable AI systems, and prospective post-AGI economic systems. We make three contributions. First, Flourishing Metrics provides an extensible framework spanning physical, emotional, financial, relational, spiritual, and planetary well-being, combining validated subjective measures with representative behavioural, organisational, community, and environmental indicators. Second, Return on Flourishing (RoF) extends return on investment by evaluating the counterfactual contribution of interventions, policies, and AI systems to flourishing relative to their resources, risks, and opportunity costs. Third, we develop distribution-sensitive safeguards and show how RoF could guide AI-enabled work redesign, institutional appraisal, assurance, and post-deployment monitoring through business pilots. We formalise flourishing as a dynamic system variable while emphasising the need for democratic specification, empirical calibration, independent validation, and protection against unacceptable losses within particular dimensions or stakeholder groups. RoF is proposed not as a universal reward function, but as a value-accounting and decision architecture for assessing whether intelligence, automation, and economic transformation generate durable human and planetary progress.

Explore similar work

CardsList
Aug 2, 2026cs.AI

A New Theory of Value for Post-AGI Economics

Artificial general intelligence (AGI) may weaken scarcities in labour, expertise, information, and productive capability that underpin established theories of economic value. If cognitive work becomes widely automatable, market price, labour input, revealed preference, profit, and gross output may diverge sharply from human and societal benefit. This paper develops Flourishing Value Theory (FVT) as a foundation for post-AGI economics. FVT defines value as the counterfactual, distribution-sensitive contribution of a system, institution, asset, or intervention to the durable capabilities of persons and communities to flourish within social and planetary constraints. It treats societal value as multidimensional, agency-preserving, regenerative, and non-compensatory at critical thresholds. Drawing on the economics of AI, welfare and capability theory, automation, digital valuation, and ecological economics, the paper distinguishes value creation from value capture and retains price, profit, productivity, and GDP as partial signals rather than final measures of progress. It develops the shifts from scarcity to governed abundance, transaction to transformation, and zero-sum rivalry to positive-sum and infinite-game dynamics, with collective expansion of consciousness as an agency-preserving form of regenerative value. Building on Flourishing Metrics and Return on Flourishing (RoF), it proposes a layered architecture for firms, governments, work transitions, AI governance, and national accounting. The central post-AGI economic problem is not how to maximise output, but how to convert abundant intelligence into durable, fairly distributed human, societal, and planetary flourishing.
Keyun Ruan
EconomiesValueArtificial Intelligence SystemsTheoretical FoundationsRegen
AskPDF
May 11, 2026cs.AI

Positive Alignment: Artificial Intelligence for Human Flourishing

Existing alignment research is dominated by concerns about safety and preventing harm: safeguards, controllability, and compliance. This paradigm of alignment parallels early psychology's focus on mental illness: necessary but incomplete. What we call Positive Alignment is the development of AI systems that (i) actively support human and ecological flourishing in a pluralistic, polycentric, context-sensitive, and user-authored way while (ii) remaining safe and cooperative. It is a distinct and necessary agenda within AI alignment research. We argue that several existing failures of alignment (e.g., engagement hacking, loss of human autonomy, failures in truth-seeking, low epistemic humility, error correction, lack of diverse viewpoints, and being primarily reactive rather than proactive) may be better addressed through positive alignment, including cultivating virtues and maximizing human flourishing. We highlight a range of challenges, open questions, and technical directions (e.g., data filtering and upsampling, pre- and post-training, evaluations, collaborative value collection) for different phases of the LLM and agents lifecycle. We end with design principles for promoting disagreement and decentralization through contextual grounding, community customization, continual adaptation, and polycentric governance; that is, many legitimate centers of oversight rather than one institutional or moral chokepoint.
Ruben Laukkonen, Seb Krier, Chloé Bakalar +13
Artificial Intelligence AlignmentGoverned
AskPDF
May 7, 2026cs.LG

Benchmarked Yet Not Measured -- Generative AI Should be Evaluated Against Real-World Utility

Generative AI systems achieve impressive performance on standard benchmarks yet fail to deliver real-world utility, a disconnect we identify across 28 deployment cases spanning education, healthcare, software engineering, and law. We argue that this benchmark utility gap arises from three recurring failures in evaluation practice: proxy displacement, temporal collapse, and distributional concealment. Motivated by these observations, we argue that generative AI evaluation requires a paradigm shift from static benchmark-centered transparency toward stakeholder, goal, and context-conditioned utility transparency grounded in human outcome trajectories. Existing evaluations primarily characterize properties of model outputs, while deployment success depends on whether interaction with AI improves stakeholders' ability to achieve their goals over time. The missing construct is therefore utility: the change in a stakeholder's capability induced through sustained interaction with an AI system within a deployment context. To operationalize this perspective, we propose SCU-GenEval, a four-stage evaluation framework consisting of stakeholder-goal mapping, construct-indicator specification, mechanism modeling, and longitudinal utility measurement. To make these stages practically deployable, we introduce three supporting instruments: structured deployment protocols, context-conditioned user simulators, and persona- and goal-conditioned proxy metrics. We conclude with domain-specific calls to action, arguing that progress in generative AI must be evaluated through measurable improvements in human outcomes rather than benchmark performance alone.
Ishani Mondal, Shweta Bhardwaj
Artificial Intelligence EvaluationGenerative Artificial IntelligenceStakeholdersBenchmark SuiteReal-World
AskPDF