.png){kind=icon}
.png){kind=icon}
Return
Epistemic norms for AI safety and alignment research
.png){kind=icon}
OA
AI
K
DOI：10.1007/s10462-026-11666-8.png)
.png){kind=icon}
Original request for help.png){kind=icon}
Share.png){kind=icon}
Save
Abstract
En 中文
Mainstream AI research emphasises capability growth and tolerates low failure rates when average-case performance is high. AI safety and alignment research has a different mission: to ensure that catastrophic failures never occur, under sparse evidence, adversarial dynamics, and fat-tailed risk. We argue that the two domains differ along two analytically independent axes — capability profile (demonstrating the absence of hazardous behaviours versus the presence of positive capabilities) and risk profile (bounding worst-case outcomes under fat-tailed uncertainty versus optimising average-case performance) — and that mainstream epistemic practices are inadequate on both. Building on a structured synthesis grounded in a preregistered bibliometric baseline, we identify five cross-cutting gap dimensions in current alignment research, including the near-absence of institutionalised independent verification. To address these gaps we propose ECAISA, an Epistemic Code for AI Safety and Alignment comprising eight principles, a three-level scoring rubric, a four-level disclosure ladder that reconciles transparency with information-hazard and commercial-confidentiality constraints, a tiered applicability scheme, an infohazard adjudication procedure, and seven anti-gaming mechanisms. ECAISA does not certify that any AI system is safe; it constrains how safety-relevant research claims are documented, checked, and relied upon, with auditability rather than certification as its governance target. A retrospective rubric audit (κ = 0.79) demonstrates instrument feasibility; a four-stage validation roadmap is proposed.
Journal
IF:
13.9
Papers:
6.1K
Citations:
1.9W
Organization
Cited Papers