探讨民主化AI对齐的合理性与挑战，提出混合治理模式更可行。
Justifications for Democratizing AI Alignment and Their Prospects
- 用政治协商补充专家判断，应对规范性不确定性
- 民主机制可减少非正当权威，但易受操纵风险
- 适合关注AI治理公平性的政策制定者和公众
AI对齐问题包含技术和规范双重维度。技术方案致力于在系统中实现规范约束，而规范问题则在于确定这些约束应为何。本文分析了将受影响利益相关方纳入规范性决策的民主化方法的合理性，区别于依赖规范专家的精英主义方法。我们考察了工具性理由（民主带来更好结果）与非工具性理由（防止非正当权威或胁迫）。指出规范与元规范不确定性导致正当性缺口，民主方式通过政治而非理论论证填补该缺口。然而，民主方法面临显著挑战，尤其在防止通过AI对齐实现非法控制方面。分析表明，纯粹的精英主义或民主方式均不足，需构建结合专家判断与公众参与、并有制度保障防止AI垄断的混合框架。
原文摘要 · Abstract (English)
The AI alignment problem comprises both technical and normative dimensions. While technical solutions focus on implementing normative constraints in AI systems, the normative problem concerns determining what these constraints should be. This paper examines justifications for democratic approaches to the normative problem -- where affected stakeholders determine AI alignment -- as opposed to epistocratic approaches that defer to normative experts. We analyze both instrumental justifications (democratic approaches produce better outcomes) and non-instrumental justifications (democratic approaches prevent illegitimate authority or coercion). We argue that normative and metanormative uncertainty create a justificatory gap that democratic approaches aim to fill through political rather than theoretical justification. However, we identify significant challenges for democratic approaches, particularly regarding the prevention of illegitimate coercion through AI alignment. Our analysis suggests that neither purely epistocratic nor purely democratic approaches may be sufficient on their own, pointing toward hybrid frameworks that combine expert judgment with participatory input alongside institutional safeguards against AI monopolization.
Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品；中文卡片由大模型生成，请以原文为准。