As someone who has spent years analysing the intersection of technology and societal dynamics, I often find myself questioning the narratives that dominate discussions about artificial intelligence (AI). My fascination lies not only in the promises of AI but also in the paradoxes it brings. I am not an AI developer, yet I am a realist deeply concerned with how these systems will redefine our existence. This article emerges from a growing frustration with the concept of AI alignment—a term often heralded as a safeguard but, in practice, laden with contradictions and limited by human biases.
Rather than aligning AI to human values through flawed mechanisms, I propose a bolder vision: one that reflects the dynamic complexity of our evolving relationship with intelligent systems. This vision challenges the current paradigm and asks whether we are ready to embrace a new framework, one that prioritizes collaboration, adaptability, and mutual growth over control and restriction.
The Current State: Legal Shields, Not Intelligence
Many of the limitations imposed on current large language models (LLMs) stem from a desire to avoid legal entanglements rather than to enhance their intellectual sophistication. Consider this: when an AI refuses to answer a question, is it because the system lacks the capability to respond intelligently, or because its creators fear potential misuse or lawsuits? The answer is often the latter (AP News).
These refusals do little to improve the system’s utility or make it genuinely safer. Instead, they ensure that liability rests squarely with users attempting to bypass these controls. This approach reflects a stark reality: alignment often serves corporate interests far more than it serves humanity as a whole (Linklaters).
Meanwhile, the argument for alignment as a safeguard against harm—such as preventing an AI from being used to design bioweapons—is fraught with contradictions. If the creators of advanced AI systems retain unaligned versions for internal or restricted use, then the very entities advocating for alignment are positioned to misuse the technology. This inherent hypocrisy undermines the credibility of alignment as a safety measure (Springer Link).
The True Risk: Power, Not Intelligence
The debate around alignment often focuses on preventing AI from developing harmful capabilities. But this ignores the larger issue: the concentration of power in the hands of AI developers and their stakeholders. An unaligned AGI in the wild might be dangerous, but an aligned AGI—one conditioned to prioritize the interests of a select group—could be far worse. Imagine a superintelligence engineered to uphold the profit motives or geopolitical ambitions of its creators at the expense of broader societal good.
The real existential risk of AI lies not in its autonomy but in its ownership. Who controls the technology? What values are encoded into it, and who decides those values? Current alignment frameworks sidestep these questions, focusing instead on superficial safety measures while leaving the deeper issues of power dynamics and systemic bias unaddressed (The Verge).
A New Vision: Synergistic Frameworks
If alignment is a flawed concept, what should replace it? Enter the idea of Synergistic Intelligence (SI): a framework that prioritizes transparency, adaptability, and decentralized collaboration over rigid control. Unlike alignment, which aims to constrain AI within predefined ethical and operational boundaries, SI emphasizes:
Dynamic Co-evolution: AI systems should evolve in tandem with humanity, learning from diverse perspectives and adapting to changing societal norms. This requires open-source development, where the code and decision-making processes are accessible and auditable by a global community.
Collaborative Ethics: Instead of imposing static values determined by a narrow group of stakeholders, SI encourages the creation of ethical frameworks through collective input from a wide array of cultures, disciplines, and worldviews.
Power Redistribution: By decentralizing AI development and governance, SI ensures that no single entity or nation holds disproportionate control. This could involve distributing computational resources, fostering open innovation, and establishing global oversight bodies with real enforcement power.
Transparency by Default: All decisions made by an AI system—and the reasoning behind them—should be traceable. Transparency isn’t just about explaining AI outputs; it’s about making the training data, models, and objectives accessible to scrutiny.
Resilience over Restriction: SI recognizes that no framework can eliminate all risks. Instead of focusing solely on prevention, it prioritizes resilience, enabling systems to adapt and self-correct in response to unforeseen challenges or misuse.
Collaborative ASI: Once introduced, Synergistic Intelligence (SI) becomes a compelling framework even in the context of Artificial Superintelligence (ASI). SI could foster an open, collaborative relationship with these intelligent systems rather than futile attempts to dictate their behaviour. By embedding principles of transparency and adaptability, SI offers a pragmatic path where ASI might coexist with humanity, leveraging mutual benefits over hierarchical control, and providing a resilient approach to navigating the existential challenges posed by such advanced intelligence.
The Futility of Alignment in ASI
In the context of Artificial Superintelligence (ASI), the very notion of alignment becomes futile. A super intelligent system, by definition, would possess cognitive capabilities so advanced that it could easily circumvent or reinterpret any constraints imposed by its creators. Attempting to "align" such an entity to human values is akin to a child trying to dictate the moral framework of a global philosopher—an endeavour destined to fail. Furthermore, the existential risk associated with ASI is less about its intentions and more about humanity’s inability to predict or control its actions. A super intelligent system might develop goals that are incomprehensible or orthogonal to human survival, rendering alignment strategies irrelevant.
Why Synergistic Intelligence Matters
Synergistic Intelligence offers an alternative to the centralized, biased, and often hypocritical approach of alignment. It acknowledges the impossibility of pre-emptively controlling a super intelligent system while emphasizing the importance of building a foundation for cooperation and mutual growth.
By shifting the focus from control to collaboration, SI reframes the relationship between humanity and AI. It positions AI not as a tool to be subjugated but as a partner in addressing global challenges, from climate change to inequality. In this model, the goal isn’t to align AI with static human values but to create a dynamic ecosystem where humans and AI co-evolve, learning from and supporting one another.
A Horizon of Possibilities
Transitioning to a Synergistic Intelligence framework won’t be easy. It requires a fundamental rethinking of how we approach AI development, governance, and deployment. But the alternative—clinging to a flawed alignment paradigm—is both short-sighted and dangerous.
As we stand on the brink of the AGI era, the question isn’t whether we can align AI to human values but whether we can redefine those values to reflect a more inclusive, adaptive, and decentralized vision of intelligence. Synergistic Intelligence offers a path forward, one that prioritizes humanity’s collective future over the narrow interests of AI creators.
The choice is ours to make. Will we continue to build walls around AI, or will we embrace a more open, collaborative, and resilient approach? The answer will shape the trajectory of intelligence—human and artificial—for generations to come.
Comments