# Position: Align AI to Our Aspirations, Not Our Flaws

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.13755 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.13755/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Human values and AI feedback alignment, one of 10 directions in LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation.
- Builds on 25 of its 131 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 11 Jun 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation / [Human values and AI feedback alignment](https://mlsanity.com/alignment/human-values-and-ai-feedback-alignment/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 25 of 25)

- [Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.02155/) (2022)
- [Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.03741/) (2017)
- [Let's Verify Step by Step](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.20050/) (2023)
- [Man is to Computer Programmer as Woman is to Homemaker? Debiasing Word Embeddings](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1607.06520/) (2016)
- [A General Language Assistant as a Laboratory for Alignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2112.00861/) (2021)
- [Towards Understanding Sycophancy in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.13548/) (2023)
- [Semantics derived automatically from language corpora contain human-like biases](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1608.07187/) (2016)
- [Whose Opinions Do Language Models Reflect?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.17548/) (2023)
- [Open Problems and Fundamental Limitations of Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.15217/) (2023)
- [Artificial Intelligence, Values and Alignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2001.09768/) (2020)
- [LegalBench: A Collaboratively Built Benchmark for Measuring Legal Reasoning in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.11462/) (2023)
- [Fine-tuning language models to find agreement among humans with diverse preferences](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2211.15006/) (2022)
- [AI Deception: A Survey of Examples, Risks, and Potential Solutions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.14752/) (2023)
- [A Roadmap to Pluralistic Alignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.05070/) (2024)
- [Social Choice Should Guide AI Alignment in Dealing with Diverse Human Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.10271/) (2024)
- [In conversation with Artificial Intelligence: aligning language models with human values](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2209.00731/) (2022)
- [Everyone's Voice Matters: Quantifying Annotation Disagreement Using Demographic Information](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2301.05036/) (2023)
- [Beyond Preferences in AI Alignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.16984/) (2024)
- [From Values to Opinions: Predicting Human Behaviors and Stances Using Value-Injected Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.17857/) (2023)
- [Democratic AI is Possible. The Democracy Levels Framework Shows How It Might Work](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.09222/) (2024)
- [Biases Propagate in Encoder-based Vision-Language Models: A Systematic Analysis From Intrinsic Measures to Zero-shot Retrieval Outcomes](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.06506/) (2025)
- [PluriHarms: Benchmarking the Full Spectrum of Human Judgments on AI Harm](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.08951/) (2026)
- ["Label from Somewhere": Reflexive Annotating for Situated AI Alignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.17937/) (2026)
- [EVALUESTEER: Measuring Reward Model Steerability Towards Values and Preferences](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.06370/) (2025)
- [Research Superalignment Should Advance Now with Alternating Competence and Conformity Optimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.07660/) (2025)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [A Roadmap to Impactful Pluralistic Alignment Research](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.22305/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

We argue that aligning AI to aggregated human preferences is the wrong target. With current technology, one can train AIs to share the values of a Silicon Valley techno-optimist, a degrowth environmentalist, a national-conservative culture warrior, a single-party state cadre, or a devout religious traditionalist. We should not. Human values produce societies that thrive or fail on the merits of those values - from failed states and extreme inequality to declining happiness, political polarization, and government dysfunction in the world's wealthiest democracies. The pluralistic-alignment program correctly diagnoses that there is no single "humanity" to align with, but is dangerous if taken as the main directive. We argue that AI should be trained to a non-negotiable floor of objective alignment goals - competence, bounded by the constraints of factual accuracy, honesty, and lawfulness and that pluralism belongs at the surface (language, register, conventions, missing-context defaults) and across the wide band of legitimate value tradeoffs that respect the floor, but not at the level of values that violate it. We highlight the empirical reality of unfiltered pluralistic values, propose four commitments as a constructive alternative, and engage six credible objections: commercial pressure and practical feasibility, democratic legitimacy, regulatory compliance, over-reliance on institutionalist explanations, the charge that the floor itself is culturally laden, and the limits of Coherent Extrapolated Volition.