Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

AI Alignment through Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback? Contradictions and Limitations

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2406.18346 v1 pith:PFH2UJZ2 submitted 2024-06-26 cs.AI

AI Alignment through Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback? Contradictions and Limitations

classification cs.AI
keywords rlxffeedbackhumanalignmentapproachcontradictionscriticallygoals
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

This paper critically evaluates the attempts to align Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems, especially Large Language Models (LLMs), with human values and intentions through Reinforcement Learning from Feedback (RLxF) methods, involving either human feedback (RLHF) or AI feedback (RLAIF). Specifically, we show the shortcomings of the broadly pursued alignment goals of honesty, harmlessness, and helpfulness. Through a multidisciplinary sociotechnical critique, we examine both the theoretical underpinnings and practical implementations of RLxF techniques, revealing significant limitations in their approach to capturing the complexities of human ethics and contributing to AI safety. We highlight tensions and contradictions inherent in the goals of RLxF. In addition, we discuss ethically-relevant issues that tend to be neglected in discussions about alignment and RLxF, among which the trade-offs between user-friendliness and deception, flexibility and interpretability, and system safety. We conclude by urging researchers and practitioners alike to critically assess the sociotechnical ramifications of RLxF, advocating for a more nuanced and reflective approach to its application in AI development.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. User identity conditions moral wrongness ratings in non-reasoning large language models

    cs.CY 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    Implicitly conveying a user's professional role in multi-turn LLM conversations shifts moral wrongness ratings across ten common-morality rules in two non-reasoning models.

  2. What Do People Actually Want From AI? Mapping Preference Plurality

    cs.CL 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Open-ended preference data reveals substantial plurality in what people want from AI and divergent interpretations of shared values such as truthfulness.

  3. ClaHF: A Human Feedback-inspired Reinforcement Learning Framework for Improving Classification Tasks

    cs.LG 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    ClaHF converts instance labels into preference signals via candidate predictions and a reward model, then applies RL optimization to improve text classification accuracy and calibration.