Intrinsic Barriers and Practical Pathways for Human-AI Alignment: An Agreement-Based Complexity Analysis
Aran Nayebi

TL;DR
This paper formalizes the inherent complexity limits of aligning AI systems with human values, demonstrating fundamental barriers and proposing principles for scalable human-AI collaboration.
Contribution
It introduces a formal agreement-based framework for AI alignment, proving intrinsic complexity bounds and constructing algorithms that highlight the inevitability of reward hacking.
Findings
Intrinsic alignment overheads grow with number of objectives or agents.
Encoding all human values is inherently intractable.
Reward hacking is unavoidable in large task spaces with finite samples.
Abstract
We formalize AI alignment as a multi-objective optimization problem called -agreement, in which a set of agents (including humans) must reach approximate () agreement across candidate objectives, with probability at least . Analyzing communication complexity, we prove an information-theoretic lower bound showing that once either or is large enough, no amount of computational power or rationality can avoid intrinsic alignment overheads. This establishes rigorous limits to alignment *itself*, not merely to particular methods, clarifying a "No-Free-Lunch" principle: encoding "all human values" is inherently intractable and must be managed through consensus-driven reduction or prioritization of objectives. Complementing this impossibility result, we construct explicit algorithms as achievability certificates for…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
Taxonomy
TopicsInnovation Diffusion and Forecasting
MethodsSPEED: Separable Pyramidal Pooling EncodEr-Decoder for Real-Time Monocular Depth Estimation on Low-Resource Settings · ALIGN
