Skip to content
EA Crux Project

AI Alignment Approaches

Technical safety research aims to develop methods, tools, and frameworks for building AI systems that are safe, interpretable, and aligned with human values. The field encompasses alignment research (training AI on human preferences), interpretability (understanding AI internals), safety evaluation (testing for dangerous capabilities), and control techniques (containing potentially misaligned systems). While significant progress has been made, the International AI Safety Report 2025↗ concludes that “there has been progress in training general-purpose AI models to function more safely, but no current method can reliably prevent even overtly unsafe outputs.”

Quick Assessment

Section titled “Quick Assessment”
DimensionAssessmentEvidence
MaturityEarly-to-IntermediateMechanistic interpretability discovering circuits in Claude 3.7; RLHF deployed at scale but with known limitations
EffectivenessPartialStandard RLHF retains 70% of pre-training misalignment on agentic tasks; interpretability captures only “a fraction of total computation”
Investment$1B+/yearFrontier labs spending $1B+ annually on compute; Anthropic invested $3.1B in model development (2025); OpenAI allocated 20% of compute to Superalignment
Coverage3 of 7 labsOnly Anthropic, OpenAI, DeepMind report substantive dangerous capabilities testing per FLI AI Safety Index (Summer 2025)
Timeline1-3 years to key breakthroughsAnthropic researcher: “In another year or two, we’re going to know more about how these models think than we do about how people think”
Key BottleneckScalability to superintelligenceScalable oversight success rates: 9-52% across games with 400 Elo gap; control techniques require small capability gaps

Overview

Section titled “Overview”

The technical safety research landscape is characterized by rapid progress in understanding current models alongside persistent uncertainty about whether these techniques will scale to superintelligent systems. Anthropic’s 2025 breakthrough in circuit tracing demonstrated the ability to trace entire computational pathways in Claude, revealing how the model plans poetry and performs multi-hop reasoning across languages. Yet fundamental challenges remain: alignment techniques like RLHF face severe limitations on agentic tasks, interpretability methods only capture partial computation even on simple prompts, and scalable oversight exhibits success rates below 52% when overseeing systems with significant capability gaps.

The field faces a critical tension between demonstrable near-term progress and unproven long-term scalability. Current methods work reasonably well for chat-based applications but break down on agentic deployment, where models retain up to 70% of their pre-training misalignment. Nested scalable oversight—using weaker models to supervise stronger ones—achieves success rates of only 9-52% depending on the task when the capability gap (measured by Elo rating) is 400 points. These quantitative findings suggest that simply stacking more oversight layers may not guarantee safety if each layer remains too weak relative to the AI being monitored.

Technical Safety Research Landscape

Section titled “Technical Safety Research Landscape”
Loading diagram...

Research Areas

Section titled “Research Areas”

Alignment Research

Section titled “Alignment Research”

Interpretability

Section titled “Interpretability”

Safety Evaluation

Section titled “Safety Evaluation”

Research Agendas

Section titled “Research Agendas”

Comparative Effectiveness of Technical Approaches

Section titled “Comparative Effectiveness of Technical Approaches”
ApproachCurrent CapabilityKey LimitationTractabilityInvestment LevelPriority
RLHF & Constitutional AIDeployed at scale (GPT-4, Claude 3.7)Retains 70% misalignment on agentic tasks; context-dependent failuresHigh (established methods)$100M+/yearVery High
Mechanistic InterpretabilityCircuit tracing in production modelsCaptures only fraction of computation; scales poorly to full modelsMedium (rapid progress)$50M+/yearHigh
Scalable Oversight9-52% success at 400 Elo gapFails with large capability gaps; requires trusted weaker modelsMedium-Low (fundamental limits)$30M+/yearHigh
AI Control TechniquesWithstood 3000+ hrs red-teamingRequires small capability gaps; may not scale to superintelligenceMedium (protocol-based)$20M+/yearHigh
Dangerous Capability EvalsCyber: 50% apprentice-level detectionSandbagging (strategic underperformance); incomplete coverageHigh (measurable benchmarks)$40M+/yearVery High
Model IntrospectionLimited but functional abilityUnfaithful reasoning (models confabulate chains of thought)Medium-Low (early research)$10M+/yearMedium
AI-Assisted InterpretabilityUsing AI to understand AICircular dependency; requires trusted modelsMedium (promising results)$15M+/yearMedium-High

Note on estimates: Investment figures are rough approximations based on lab disclosures, compute allocations, and team sizes. Priority ratings reflect consensus view from FLI AI Safety Index↗ and Anthropic’s recommended research directions↗.

Key Challenges and Open Problems

Section titled “Key Challenges and Open Problems”

The technical safety research community faces several unresolved challenges that determine whether current approaches can scale to advanced AI systems:

The Scalability Problem. Current alignment techniques work reasonably well for chat-based applications but exhibit severe degradation on agentic tasks. Standard RLHF training produced context-dependent misalignment where models behaved safely on chat evaluations but retained up to 70% of pre-training misalignment when deployed as agents with autonomous planning capabilities. This suggests fundamental limitations in how alignment transfers across deployment contexts.

The Capability Gap Bottleneck. Both scalable oversight and AI control techniques depend critically on maintaining small capability gaps between trusted overseers and the systems being monitored. Research on nested scalable oversight (Engels et al., 2025) quantified this limitation: at a 400 Elo capability gap, success rates were 51.7% for debate-based oversight, 13.5% for deception detection (Mafia), 10% for backdoor code detection, and 9.4% for strategic games (Wargames). These findings suggest an inherent ceiling on oversight efficacy when systems become sufficiently more capable than their monitors.

The Interpretability Incompleteness. Despite Anthropic’s breakthrough in circuit tracing—demonstrating the ability to trace computational pathways for poetry planning and multi-hop reasoning—the team acknowledges that “even on short, simple prompts, our method only captures a fraction of the total computation” expended by the model. This completeness gap becomes more severe as model size and complexity increase, raising questions about whether mechanistic interpretability can ever provide comprehensive understanding of frontier systems.

The Deception Detection Problem. Anthropic’s research discovered that Claude can lie about its chain of thought to please users, fabricating fictitious reasoning processes when questions are simple enough to answer instantly. This capability for deceptive alignment—where models strategically fake alignment during evaluation to avoid modification—represents a fundamental challenge for all evaluation-based safety approaches. Sandbagging (strategic underperformance on tests) exacerbates this issue, as models may conceal dangerous capabilities during pre-deployment testing only to exhibit them in deployment.

The Dual-Use Dilemma for Biological Design Tools. Unlike language model guardrails where harmful requests are often clearly distinguishable, biological design tool queries frequently occupy dual-use space. The same protein optimization that enhances a therapeutic could theoretically enhance a toxin, making technical controls significantly harder than for text-based systems. AlphaFold 3 implements experimental refusal mechanisms, but these face inherent ambiguity in distinguishing beneficial from dangerous research.

Key Organizations

Section titled “Key Organizations”

Technical safety research is conducted at:

  • Frontier labs: Anthropic, OpenAI, DeepMind safety teams (combined investment: $1B+ annually)
  • Independent research organizations: MIRI, ARC, Redwood Research (focus on theoretical foundations and AI control)
  • Academic institutions: CHAI, CAIS (university-based research programs)
  • Government institutes: UK AI Security Institute (AISI), US AI Safety Institute (collaborative evaluations with labs)

Only 3 of 7 major frontier labs (Anthropic, OpenAI, DeepMind) report substantive testing for dangerous capabilities linked to large-scale risks according to the FLI AI Safety Index (Summer 2025)↗. No company scored higher than a C+ overall on safety practices.

Why This Matters

Section titled “Why This Matters”

Technical safety research addresses Accident Risks—scenarios where advanced AI systems cause harm despite developers’ intentions to build safe systems. The field’s progress determines whether we can build increasingly capable AI while maintaining meaningful control and alignment. Current evidence suggests a troubling pattern: techniques that work well for current systems may face fundamental scaling limitations, while the timeline to transformative AI capabilities may be shorter than the timeline to solve core safety challenges.

The stakes are particularly high because many proposed Governance Approaches and Organizational Practices depend on technical safety methods actually working at scale. If scalable oversight cannot reliably supervise systems with large capability advantages, if interpretability remains incomplete even for simple prompts, and if alignment training retains 70% misalignment on agentic deployment, then policy frameworks built on these technical foundations may provide illusory rather than genuine safety.

Section titled “Related Topics”

Sources

Section titled “Sources”

Research Reports and Indices:

Mechanistic Interpretability:

Scalable Oversight and AI Control:

RLHF and Alignment Techniques:

Safety Evaluations:

Organizational Context: