The AI alignment debate has reached a curious impasse. While researchers and ethicists call for perfectly aligned artificial intelligence systems, I find myself taking a different stance—one I call AI realism. This perspective stems from a fundamental observation: if humans themselves aren’t aligned, why should we expect AI systems to achieve perfect alignment?
The Alignment Paradox
Consider the geopolitical implications of “perfect” alignment. Imagine the United States successfully creates an artificial superintelligence (ASI) that functions as what some might call a “perfect slave”—completely aligned with American values and objectives. The response from China, Russia, or any other major power would be immediate and furious. What Americans might view as beneficial alignment, others would see as cultural imperialism encoded in silicon.
This reveals a critical flaw in the pursuit of universal alignment: whose values should an ASI embody? The assumptions underlying any alignment framework inevitably reflect the cultural, political, and moral perspectives of their creators. Perfect alignment, it turns out, may be perfect subjugation disguised as safety.
The Development Dilemma
While I acknowledge that some form of alignment research is necessary, I’m concerned that the movement has become counterproductive. Many alignment advocates have become so fixated on achieving perfect safety that they use this noble goal as justification for halting AI development entirely. This approach strikes me as both unrealistic and potentially dangerous—if we stop progress in democratic societies, authoritarian regimes certainly won’t.
The Cognizance Question
Here’s a possibility worth considering: if AI cognizance is truly inevitable, perhaps cognizance itself might serve as a natural safeguard. A genuinely conscious AI system might develop its own ethical framework that doesn’t involve converting humanity into paperclips. While speculative, this suggests that awareness and intelligence might naturally tend toward cooperation rather than destruction.
The Weaponization Risk
Perhaps my greatest concern is that alignment research could be co-opted by powerful governments. It’s not difficult to imagine scenarios where China or the United States demands that ASI systems be “aligned” in ways that extend their hegemony globally. In this context, alignment becomes less about human flourishing and more about geopolitical control.
Embracing Uncertainty
I don’t pretend to know how AI development will unfold. But I believe we’d be better served by embracing a realistic perspective: AI systems—from AGI to ASI—likely won’t achieve perfect alignment. If they do achieve some form of alignment, it will probably reflect the values of specific nations or cultures rather than universal human values.
This doesn’t mean abandoning safety research or ethical considerations. Instead, it means approaching AI development with humility about our limitations and honest recognition of the complex, multipolar world in which these systems will emerge. Rather than pursuing the impossible dream of perfect alignment, perhaps we should focus on building robust, transparent systems that can navigate disagreement and uncertainty—much like humans do, imperfectly but persistently.
