cd /news/ai-safety/a-list-of-existing-alignment-approac… · home topics ai-safety article
[ARTICLE · art-64193] src=lesswrong.com ↗ pub= topic=ai-safety verified=true sentiment=· neutral

A list of existing alignment approaches

A researcher compiled a list of existing AI alignment techniques, including training methods using model internals or outputs, imitation-based or outcome-based objectives, and control systems with monitors and rejection sampling. The post calls for community input on any missing approaches.

read2 min views1 publishedJul 17, 2026

How can we make a nice AI system?

Here's a list of all the techniques I'm aware of.

  • Train the AI system to be nice. There are a variety of things we can vary in how we train the AI:
  • Train using model internals OR using outputs.
  • The central internals-based things I’m imagining involve using the internals as a reward signal (e.g., like

this). Calling “CoT” “internals” is sometimes reasonable (we might want to do process supervision on the CoT).

  • Vary how similar the distribution we’re training on is to the distribution that we care about.

  • For instance: do online training VS training in a toy domain.

  • Train using an imitation-based objective (SFT) OR an outcome-based objective (RL) OR train on declarative facts / stories (mid-training).

  • Train for good behavior or train against bad behavior. Training for good behavior might include training the AI to produce good looking reasoning, as in deliberative alignment.

  • Obviously, there’s a big question of how we get the labels / reward signal here, which should be studied. Especially if you’re doing untrusted monitoring.

  • We’ll also need to decide whether to use on or off policy data.

  • If we’re training on facts / stories stating that the AI is a nice guy: We can vary what the stories are, and how we instill the persona. For instance, we might add a bunch of irrelevant quirks to the persona, and train for those. We likely want to have the stories explain

why the AI takes nice actions.

  • We might not directly train the policy, but instead train/prompt monitors, and orchestrate a control system. That is, we might ensemble potentially misaligned AI models into a hopefully mostly good AI system. When ensembling, we’ll likely do some amount of rejection sampling of bad actions, and also “factored cognition” / forcing the AI to solve problems that we don’t think it can sabotage. A large part of the problem here is figuring out how to do a good job of interrogating AI models to see if they’re sabotaging you (i.e., “debate” style techniques).

Please let me know if I've missed any techniques!

Discuss

── more in #ai-safety 4 stories · sorted by recency
── more on @anthropic 3 stories trending now
sponsored brought to you by zahid.host 4,200+ EU-deployed projects
reading about agents? ship yours in a single git push.

Run your AI side-project on zahid.host

EU-based hosting, git-push deploys, automatic HTTPS, no cold starts. Free tier with a custom domain — perfect for shipping the agent you just read about.

$git push zahid main
Live at https://your-agent.zahid.host
Get free account → Pricing
from €0/mo · no card required
LIVE [news/a-list-of-existing-a…] indexed:0 read:2min 2026-07-17 ·