mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Intent-aligned AI systems deplete human agency: the need for agency foundations research in AI safety

arXiv 2305.19223 ↗First posted 30 May 2023cs.AI cs.CY cs.HCcited by 4

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) systems suggests that artificial general intelligence (AGI) systems may soon arrive. Many researchers are concerned that AIs and AGIs will harm humans via intentional misuse (AI-misuse) or through accidents (AI-accidents). In respect of AI-accidents, there is an increasing effort focused on developing algorithms and paradigms that ensure AI systems are aligned to what humans intend, e.g. AI systems that yield actions or recommendations that humans might judge as consistent with their intentions and goals. Here we argue that alignment to human intent is insufficient for safe AI systems and that preservation of long-term agency of humans may be a more robust standard, and one that needs to be separated explicitly and a priori during optimization. We argue that AI systems can reshape human intention and discuss the lack of biological and psychological mechanisms that protect humans from loss of agency. We provide the first formal definition of agency-preserving AI-human interactions which focuses on forward-looking agency evaluations and argue that AI systems - not humans - must be increasingly tasked with making these evaluations. We show how agency loss can occur in simple environments containing embedded agents that use temporal-difference learning to make action recommendations. Finally, we propose a new area of research called "agency foundations" and pose four initial topics designed to improve our understanding of agency in AI-human interactions: benevolent game theory, algorithmic foundations of human rights, mechanistic interpretability of agency representation in neural-networks and reinforcement learning from internal states.

Key facts. Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 9 of its 69 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 30 May 2023.

Builds on

9 of 69 references.

References · 9

  1. 2017Deep reinforcement learning from human preferencescited by 3,912
  2. 2022The Alignment Problem from a Deep Learning Perspectivecited by 258
  3. 2021A Unified Survey on Anomaly, Novelty, Open-Set, and Out-of-Distribution Detection: Solutions and Future Challengescited by 154
  4. 2018Categorizing Variants of Goodhart's Lawcited by 149
  5. 2022Adversarial Training for High-Stakes Reliabilitycited by 60
  6. 2021Scalar reward is not enough: A response to Silver, Singh, Precup and Sutton (2021)cited by 55
  7. 2023Reasoning about Causality in Gamescited by 20
  8. 2022Parametrically Retargetable Decision-Makers Tend To Seek Powercited by 19
  9. 2021Learning Altruistic Behaviours in Reinforcement Learning without External Rewardscited by 8

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2025: 4.

4 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2025Alignment, Agency and Autonomy in Frontier AI: A Systems Engineering Perspective
  2. 2025Neurodivergent Influenceability as a Contingent Solution to the AI Alignment Problem
  3. 2026Institutional AI: A Governance Framework for Distributional AGI Safety
  4. 2025Superintelligent Agents Pose Catastrophic Risks: Can Scientist AI Offer a Safer Path?
  5. 2024Position: Towards Bidirectional Human-AI Alignment
  6. 2024The AI Alignment Paradox
  7. 2024Combining Theory of Mind and Kindness for Self-Supervised Human-AI Alignment
  8. 2026After the Interface: Relocating Human Agency in the Age of Conversational AI ↗