The DOI matches its DataCite record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Alignment Problem in Context
Open accessAbstract
A core challenge in the development of increasingly capable AI systems is to make them safe and reliable by ensuring their behaviour is consistent with human values. This challenge, known as the alignment problem, does not merely apply to hypothetical future AI systems that may pose catastrophic risks; it already applies to current systems, such as large language models, whose potential for harm is rapidly increasing. In this paper, I assess whether we are on track to solve the alignment problem for large language models, and what that means for the safety of future AI systems. I argue that existing strategies for alignment are insufficient, because large language models remain vulnerable to adversarial attacks that can reliably elicit unsafe behaviour. I offer an explanation of this lingering vulnerability on which it is not simply a contingent limitation of current language models, but has deep technical ties to a crucial aspect of what makes these models useful and versatile in the first place -- namely, their remarkable aptitude to learn "in context" directly from user instructions. It follows that the alignment problem is not only unsolved for current AI systems, but may be intrinsically difficult to solve without severely undermining their capabilities. Furthermore, this assessment raises concerns about the prospect of ensuring the safety of future and more capable AI systems.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
The complexity and inscrutability of LLM software hinder the ability to properly express, engineer and validate crucial requirements for the system's desired functioning.
“This comes with a key pitfall: the complexity and inscrutability of the software hinder the ability to properly express, engineer and validate crucial requirements for the system’s desired functioning (cf. Millière, 2023).”
From Helpful, harmless, honest? Sociotechnical limits of AI alignment and safety through Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (2025) · cites this paper as Millière, 2023
A general system meant for use across a variety of contexts is unlikely to be able to distinguish these cases reliably, given their diversity, regardless of the amount of RLHF fine-tuning it undergoes.
“A general system meant for use across a variety of contexts is unlikely to be able to distinguish these cases reliably, given their diversity, regardless of the amount of RLHF fine-tuning it undergoes (Millière, 2023).”
From Helpful, harmless, honest? Sociotechnical limits of AI alignment and safety through Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (2025) · cites this paper as Millière, 2023
RLHF partly succeeds in making LLM outputs more predictable, safe and controllable, at least for many expected, designer-intended uses of LLMs.
“It partly succeeds in such an aim, at least when it comes to many of the expected, designer-intended uses of LLMs—it being relatively easy to jail-break such systems for users so inclined (Narayanan et al., 2023; Millière, 2023).”
From Helpful, harmless, honest? Sociotechnical limits of AI alignment and safety through Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (2025) · cites this paper as Millière, 2023
It is relatively easy to jail-break RLHF-fine-tuned LLM systems for users so inclined.
“it being relatively easy to jail-break such systems for users so inclined (Narayanan et al., 2023; Millière, 2023).”
From Helpful, harmless, honest? Sociotechnical limits of AI alignment and safety through Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (2025) · cites this paper as Millière, 2023
Citations
Cites
The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Dahlgren Lindström, A., Methnani, L., Krause, L., Ericson, P., de Rituerto de Troya, Í. M., Coelho Mollo, D., & Dobbe, R. (2025) · Ethics and Information Technology · doi:10.1007/s10676-025-09837-2 · Cited by 54
“This comes with a key pitfall: the complexity and inscrutability of the software hinder the ability to properly express, engineer and validate crucial requirements for the system’s desired functioning (cf. Millière, 2023).”
Misalignment or misuse? The AGI alignment tradeoff
Hellrigel-Holderbaum, M., & Dung, L. (2025) · Philosophical Studies · doi:10.1007/s11098-025-02403-y · Cited by 6
Humanity Amplified: The Fusion of Deep Learning and Human Insight to Shape the Future of InnovationPreprint
Bauschard, S., & Quidwai, S. (2023) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4621210 · Cited by 4
When the occasion comes, the proverb comes: value alignment via proverbial bank and synthetic rules
Salaam, C., & Rawat, D. B. (2024) · Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning for Multi-Domain Operations Applications · doi:10.1117/12.3014236
A Two-Step, Multidimensional Account of Deception in Language Models
Dung, L. (2025) · Erkenntnis · doi:10.1007/s10670-025-01017-4 · Cited by 2
No value alignment without control
Lundgren, B. (2026) · AI and Ethics · doi:10.1007/s43681-026-00999-3
Metadata
- Authors
- Millière, R.
- Affiliations
- Macquarie University (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Millière, Raphaël
- ORCID
- Millière, Raphaël
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2023
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2311.02147
- OpenAlex
- W4388481711
- Cited by
- 6
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
- Keywords
- alignment problem, large language models, AI safety, adversarial attacks, contextual learning, human values, alignment strategies
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