Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40486676›Full record

ArticleEthics and information technology2025

Helpful, harmless, honest? Sociotechnical limits of AI alignment and safety through Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback.

Adam Dahlgren Lindström, Leila Methnani, Lea Krause, Petter Ericson, Íñigo Martínez de Rituerto de Troya, Dimitri Coelho Mollo, Roel Dobbe

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ethics and information technology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Quality of AI-generated exercise awareness messages for older adults aligned with the ICFSR consensus: a comparative study of three LLMs.European review of aging and physical activity : official journal of the European Group for Research into Elderly and Physical Activity · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Adam Dahlgren LindströmDepartment of Computing Science, Umeå University, Umeå, 90187 Sweden.
Leila MethnaniDepartment of Computing Science, Umeå University, Umeå, 90187 Sweden.
Lea KrauseDepartment of Computing Science, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, 1081 De Boelelaan 1105, Netherlands.
Petter EricsonDepartment of Computing Science, Umeå University, Umeå, 90187 Sweden.
Íñigo Martínez de Rituerto de TroyaDepartment of Engineering, Systems and Services, Delft University of Technology, Delft, 2600 Netherlands.
Dimitri Coelho MolloDepartment of Historical, Philosophical, and Religious Studies, Umeå University, Umeå, 90187 Sweden.
Roel DobbeDepartment of Engineering, Systems and Services, Delft University of Technology, Delft, 2600 Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This paper critically evaluates the attempts to align Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems, especially Large Language Models (LLMs), with human values and intentions through Reinforcement Learning from Feedback methods, involving either human feedback (RLHF) or AI feedback (RLAIF). Specifically, we show the shortcomings of the broadly pursued alignment goals of honesty, harmlessness, and helpfulness. Through a multidisciplinary sociotechnical critique, we examine both the theoretical underpinnings and practical implementations of RLHF techniques, revealing significant limitations in their approach to capturing the complexities of human ethics, and contributing to AI safety. We highlight tensions inherent in the goals of RLHF, as captured in the HHH principle (helpful, harmless and honest). In addition, we discuss ethically-relevant issues that tend to be neglected in discussions about alignment and RLHF, among which the trade-offs between user-friendliness and deception, flexibility and interpretability, and system safety. We offer an alternative vision for AI safety and ethics which positions RLHF approaches within a broader context of comprehensive design across institutions, processes and technological systems, and suggest the establishment of AI safety as a sociotechnical discipline that is open to the normative and political dimensions of artificial intelligence.

Indexed as

AI ethicsAI safetyArtificial intelligenceHuman feedbackLarge language modelsReinforcement learning

Identifiers

PMID40486676
PMCPMC12137480

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.