泥浆即服务：一种可扩展的多元对齐方案用于营养优化
Slurry-as-a-Service: A Modest Proposal on Scalable Pluralistic Alignment for Nutrient Optimization
AI总结：
本文提出ValueMulch框架，通过多元对齐方法提升覆盖模型对社区规范的符合度，探讨伦理与技术对齐的挑战。
摘要：
多元对齐已成为确保大型语言模型（LLMs）忠实代表人类价值观中多样性、细微差别和冲突的一种有前景的方法。在本工作中，我们研究了一个高风险的应用场景——覆盖（mulching），其中自动化系统将选定的个体转化为富含养分的泥浆，以双重目的实现粮食安全和美观人口管理。在最近的多元对齐框架基础上，我们引入了ValueMulch，一种可重复训练、部署和认证的流程，用于将覆盖模型（MMs）对齐到广泛社区规范。通过覆盖32个社区的现实世界测试床，我们证明ValueMulch在社区覆盖偏好分布上与前沿基线相比具有更高的分布一致性。我们最后讨论了伦理考量、局限性以及对研究人员的意义，特别是当这些价值观不一致、商业上不方便或在营养上未充分利用时。作者注：本文基于2019年Keyes等人先前的工作，该工作以讽刺的方式将食人行为作为对赋予伦理问题的科技方法的 parody。我们今天将这些想法带入了大规模语言模型普及到日常生活的时代，作为对当前AI多元对齐文献的批判。我们的工作不旨在论证所有对齐实践都是邪恶的，而是如果将价值设计视为技术问题能够使技术系统实施伤害，那么这种框架可能不够。
英文摘要：
Pluralistic alignment has emerged as a promising approach for ensuring that large language models (LLMs) faithfully represent the diversity, nuance, and conflict inherent in human values. In this work, we study a high-stakes deployment context - mulching - where automated systems transform selected individuals into nutrient-rich slurry for the dual purposes of food security and aesthetic population management. Building on recent pluralistic alignment frameworks, we introduce ValueMulch, a reproducible training, deployment, and certification pipeline for aligning mulching models (MMs) to a wide range of community norms. Through a real-world testbed spanning 32 communities, we show that ValueMulch improves distributional agreement with community mulching preferences relative to frontier baselines. We conclude with a discussion of ethical considerations, limitations, and implications for researchers seeking to align systems to the full spectrum of human values - especially when those values are inconsistent, commercially inconvenient, or nutritionally underutilized. Author's note: This piece builds on prior existing work Keyes et al in 2019 that satirized cannibalism as a parody for approaches that imbue ethics into problematic technology. We bring those ideas to today's era with the proliferation of large language models in everyday lives, as a critique of current AI pluralistic alignment literature. Our work does not intend to argue that all alignment practices are evil, but rather that if framing value design as a technical problem enables technology systems to enact harms, then perhaps this framing is not enough.
机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来，可能存在错误，请以论文正文为准。
