<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>AI Alignment at Your Discretion · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2502.10441/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:27:26 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2502.10441/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>AI Alignment at Your Discretion — HN submission</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43116772</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:submission:2502.10441:43116772</guid><pubDate>Thu, 20 Feb 2025 16:33:53 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;AI Alignment at Your Discretion&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;When feeding alignment principles to an AI, what does it prioritize? What are humans prioritizing when they give feedback? Does AI have the same priorities as human feedback? We formalize these questions as &amp;#x27;alignment discretion&amp;#x27;. Just like we scrutinize judges when they interpret and balance legal principles (judicial discretion), we should scrutinize annotators and algorithms when they balance alignment principles. Our paper presents a set of metrics to do exactly this, and we find significant discrepancies between human and algorthmic discretion.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;3 points; 0 discussion replies on HN. &lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2502.10441/"&gt;Paper and source history&lt;/a&gt;. A submission is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.AI</category></item></channel></rss>
