CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 50Usability and User Interface DesignEthics and Social Impacts of AIExplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)

Interactive AI Alignment: Specification, Process, and Evaluation Alignment

Open access
Terry, Michael, Kulkarni, Chinmay, Wattenberg, Martin, Dixon, Lucas, Morris, Meredith Ringel·2023·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2311.00710arXiv 2311.00710
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Modern AI enables a high-level, declarative form of interaction: Users describe the intended outcome they wish an AI to produce, but do not actually create the outcome themselves. In contrast, in traditional user interfaces, users invoke specific operations to create the desired outcome. This paper revisits the basic input-output interaction cycle in light of this declarative style of interaction, and connects concepts in AI alignment to define three objectives for interactive alignment of AI: specification alignment (aligning on what to do), process alignment (aligning on how to do it), and evaluation alignment (assisting users in verifying and understanding what was produced). Using existing systems as examples, we show how these user-centered views of AI alignment can be used descriptively, prescriptively, and as an evaluative aid.

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2311.00710

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Intent misalignment occurs when the AI fails to understand the user's intent or motivation, and is one of the common sources of user dissatisfaction.

    “Second, intent misalignment occur when the AI fails to understand the user's intent or motivation, and is one of the common sources of user dissatisfaction [34, 76].”

    From LLMs Get Lost In Multi-Turn Conversation (2025) · cites this paper as [76]

Cites

Still being checked.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Terry, M., Kulkarni, C., Wattenberg, M., Dixon, L., & Morris, M. R.
Affiliations
Google (United States) (US)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2023
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2311.00710
arXiv
2311.00710
OpenAlex
W4388328257
Cited by
20
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 3
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
Keywords
AI alignment, interactive alignment, process alignment, user interface design

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review