149d0dc92f
- Source: inbox/archive/2025-02-00-agreement-complexity-alignment-barriers.md - Domain: ai-alignment - Extracted by: headless extraction cron (worker 0) Pentagon-Agent: Theseus <HEADLESS>
61 lines
4.8 KiB
Markdown
61 lines
4.8 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
type: source
|
|
title: "Intrinsic Barriers and Practical Pathways for Human-AI Alignment: An Agreement-Based Complexity Analysis"
|
|
author: "Multiple authors"
|
|
url: https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.05934
|
|
date: 2025-02-01
|
|
domain: ai-alignment
|
|
secondary_domains: [collective-intelligence]
|
|
format: paper
|
|
status: processed
|
|
priority: high
|
|
tags: [impossibility-result, agreement-complexity, reward-hacking, multi-objective, safety-critical-slices]
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Content
|
|
|
|
Oral presentation at AAAI 2026 Special Track on AI Alignment.
|
|
|
|
Formalizes AI alignment as a multi-objective optimization problem where N agents must reach approximate agreement across M candidate objectives with specified probability.
|
|
|
|
**Key impossibility results**:
|
|
1. **Intractability of encoding all values**: When either M (objectives) or N (agents) becomes sufficiently large, "no amount of computational power or rationality can avoid intrinsic alignment overheads."
|
|
2. **Inevitable reward hacking**: With large task spaces and finite samples, "reward hacking is globally inevitable: rare high-loss states are systematically under-covered."
|
|
3. **No-Free-Lunch principle**: Alignment has irreducible computational costs regardless of method sophistication.
|
|
|
|
**Practical pathways**:
|
|
- **Safety-critical slices**: Rather than uniform coverage, target high-stakes regions for scalable oversight
|
|
- **Consensus-driven objective reduction**: Manage multi-agent alignment through reducing the objective space via consensus
|
|
|
|
## Agent Notes
|
|
|
|
**Why this matters:** This is a third independent impossibility result (alongside Arrow's theorem and the RLHF trilemma). Three different mathematical traditions — social choice theory, complexity theory, and multi-objective optimization — converge on the same structural finding: perfect alignment with diverse preferences is computationally intractable. This convergence is itself a strong claim.
|
|
|
|
**What surprised me:** The "consensus-driven objective reduction" pathway is exactly what bridging-based approaches (RLCF, Community Notes) do — they reduce the objective space by finding consensus regions rather than covering all preferences. This paper provides formal justification for why bridging works: it's the practical pathway out of the impossibility result.
|
|
|
|
**What I expected but didn't find:** No explicit connection to Arrow's theorem or social choice theory, despite the structural parallels. No connection to bridging-based mechanisms.
|
|
|
|
**KB connections:**
|
|
- [[universal alignment is mathematically impossible because Arrows impossibility theorem applies to aggregating diverse human preferences into a single coherent objective]] — third independent confirmation
|
|
- [[reward hacking is globally inevitable]] — this could be a new claim
|
|
- [[safe AI development requires building alignment mechanisms before scaling capability]] — the safety-critical slices approach is an alignment mechanism
|
|
|
|
**Extraction hints:** Claims about (1) convergent impossibility from three mathematical traditions, (2) reward hacking as globally inevitable, (3) consensus-driven objective reduction as practical pathway.
|
|
|
|
## Extraction Record
|
|
|
|
- **processed_by:** Theseus
|
|
- **processed_date:** 2026-03-11
|
|
- **claims_extracted:** 4
|
|
1. `reward hacking in large task spaces is globally inevitable because finite training samples cannot cover rare high-loss states regardless of optimization sophistication`
|
|
2. `multi-objective alignment overhead is computationally irreducible because no optimization method can eliminate the complexity cost of approximate agreement across many agents or objectives`
|
|
3. `three independent mathematical traditions independently prove alignment impossibility making perfect value aggregation a structural limit not an engineering problem`
|
|
4. `safety-critical slice oversight scales better than uniform alignment coverage because concentrating oversight on high-stakes state-space regions is computationally tractable while universal coverage is not`
|
|
- **enrichments:** None flagged — primary connection claim (`universal alignment is mathematically impossible because Arrow's impossibility theorem...`) is referenced in existing claims but has no standalone file; the convergence claim (3 above) partially fills this gap
|
|
|
|
**Context:** AAAI 2026 oral presentation — high-prestige venue for formal AI safety work.
|
|
|
|
## Curator Notes (structured handoff for extractor)
|
|
PRIMARY CONNECTION: [[universal alignment is mathematically impossible because Arrows impossibility theorem applies to aggregating diverse human preferences into a single coherent objective]]
|
|
WHY ARCHIVED: Third independent impossibility result from multi-objective optimization — convergent evidence from three mathematical traditions strengthens our core impossibility claim
|
|
EXTRACTION HINT: The convergence of three impossibility traditions AND the "consensus-driven reduction" pathway are both extractable
|