PhilArchive
open access
The Mediator in the Machine: AI Alignment and the Grammar of the Between
AI alignment is often framed as the problem of getting the right values, preferences, principles, or constraints into increasingly capable systems. This paper argues that such a framing can become demi-real: real enough to organize research, evaluation, and governance, yet partial enough to conceal the mediations through which values are translated, displaced, and recursively reshaped. As values pass through human judgments, datasets, objectives, reward models, policies, interfaces, institutions, and user interactions, their language may remain stable while the constraints that make them answerable are altered. The paper names this dynamic semantic continuity with constraint drift. In response, it develops a grammar of the between and a framework of choreographic alignment: an orthopractic, sociotechnical approach that treats alignment as accountable coordination across mediators, modes, receivers, institutions, cultures, and material worlds. The framework combines modal and constraint auditing, translation accounting, diatopical hermeneutics, receiver-side evaluation, and a prepositional analysis of responsibility – from, to, with, toward, within, among, through, under, and before. The proposal is instantiated through a redesigned honesty-labeling protocol, a value-translation record for model and system documentation, and a preregistration-ready longitudinal study of appropriate reliance and retained user capacity. Choreographic alignment does not replace technical safety work. It offers a way to diagnose why technically successful systems may still produce sycophancy, proxy drift, brittle refusal, overreliance, affective capture, or institutional diffusion of responsibility, and how alignment practices might better preserve value-integrity through transformation. The proposal is conceptual and methodological rather than empirically validated; its aim is to make alignment’s mediations more visible, accountable, governable, and open to failure.
Conceptio Open Archive
Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio
Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.
This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗
Related documents
- Who Is Responsible When AI Goes Wrong? Why ‘Is AI Conscious?’ Is the Wrong Question for Governance#714876
- Disagreement, AI alignment, and bargaining#82814
- Contemporary AI Alignment methodologies and constraints - literature review#696739
- Murphy’s Laws of AI Alignment: Why the Gap Always Wins#73213
- AI Alignment Foundations from First Principles: AI Ethics, Human and Social Considerations#82971
Record · ID 694337
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive