mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

The Evolutionary Origin of Values: implications for AI alignment, sentience and existential risk

arXiv 2608.03361 ↗First posted 4 Aug 2026cs.CY cs.AIcited by 0

On the map: LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation → Human values and AI feedback alignment

Abstract (arXiv)

AI systems based on Large Language Models (LLMs) have prompted fears that they may harbor hidden goals, seek to dominate or eliminate humanity, or even suffer as sentient beings. We address these concerns by tracing the evolutionary origin of value in biological organisms. Values emerge from autopoiesis: living systems must actively maintain themselves against perturbation and dissipation. Natural selection has equipped them with hierarchies of "vicarious selectors" that guide their behavior toward fitness. LLMs, by contrast, are allopoietic and allotelic: they produce outputs for others, and their goals derive from user prompts rather than an autonomous drive. They lack the intrinsic motivation for self-preservation, dominance, or resource competition that underlies existential-risk scenarios, and the embodied vulnerability required for feeling or suffering. Still, because LLMs learn statistical patterns from human-generated text, they implicitly absorb human values as well as knowledge, allowing them to focus on what is relevant. That is why the "orthogonality thesis" separating intelligence from values does not apply to them. Such separation would in fact expose any intelligence to the frame problem: the combinatorial explosion of the search space that makes any realistic utility function physically uncomputable. That also precludes the convergence of instrumental values thesis. We conclude that the real alignment challenge lies not in preventing rogue AI agency, but in ensuring LLMs intelligently apply learned ethical values.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Human values and AI feedback alignment, one of 10 directions in LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation. Builds on 10 of its 95 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 4 Aug 2026.

Builds on

10 of 95 references.

References · 10

  1. 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 59,932
  2. 2024Sycophancy in Large Language Models: Causes and Mitigationscited by 97
  3. 2024Red-Teaming for Generative AI: Silver Bullet or Security Theater?cited by 81
  4. 2024Building Guardrails for Large Language Modelscited by 61
  5. 2023Probing the Moral Development of Large Language Models through Defining Issues Testcited by 23
  6. 2018Over-Optimization of Academic Publishing Metrics: Observing Goodhart's Law in Actioncited by 22
  7. 2018Impossibility and Uncertainty Theorems in AI Value Alignment (or why your AGI should not have a utility function)cited by 22
  8. 2026Can LLMs Introspect? A Reality Checkcited by 8
  9. 2026Can AI agents conduct open-ended AI research? Early evidence from two case studiescited by 7
  10. 2026Scaling Laws for Moral Machine Judgment in Large Language Modelscited by 3

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Toward a Theory of Value in AI Alignment
  2. 2026Do LLMs Have Values? A Quantitative Analysis and Alignment Framework for Values in Large Language Models
  3. 2025The Morality of Probability: How Implicit Moral Biases in LLMs May Shape the Future of Human-AI Symbiosis
  4. 2026Why AI Alignment Failure Is Structural: Learned Human Interaction Structures and AGI as an Endogenous Evolutionary Shock
  5. 2024Dynamic Normativity: Necessary and Sufficient Conditions for Value Alignment
  6. 2026AI Value Alignment for Evolving Social Norms
  7. 2025Why Are We Moral? An LLM-based Agent Simulation Approach to Study Moral Evolution
  8. 2025Cultural Bias in Large Language Models: Evaluating AI Agents through Moral Questionnaires