There are an increasing number of domains in which artificial intelligence (AI) systems both surpass human ability and accurately model human behavior. This introduces the possibility of algorithmically-informed teaching in these domains through more relatable AI partners and deeper insights into human decision-making. Critical to achieving this goal, however, is coherently modeling human behavior at various skill levels. Chess is an ideal model system for conducting research into this kind of human-AI alignment, with its rich history as a pivotal testbed for AI research, mature superhuman AI systems like AlphaZero, and precise measurements of skill via chess rating systems. Previous work in modeling human decision-making in chess uses completely independent models to capture human style at different skill levels, meaning they lack coherence in their ability to adapt to the full spectrum of human improvement and are ultimately limited in their effectiveness as AI partners and teaching tools. In this work, we propose a unified modeling approach for human-AI alignment in chess that coherently captures human style across different skill levels and directly captures how people improve. Recognizing the complex, non-linear nature of human learning, we introduce a skill-aware attention mechanism to dynamically integrate players' strengths with encoded chess positions, enabling our model to be sensitive to evolving player skill. Our experimental results demonstrate that this unified framework significantly enhances the alignment between AI and human players across a diverse range of expertise levels, paving the way for deeper insights into human decision-making and AI-guided teaching tools.

There are an increasing number of domains in which artificial intelligence (AI) systems both surpass human ability and accurately model human behavior. This introduces the possibility of algorithmically-informed teaching in these domains through more relatable AI partners and deeper insights into human decision-making. Critical to achieving this goal, however, is coherently modeling human behavior at various skill levels. Chess is an ideal model system for conducting research into this kind of human-AI alignment, with its rich history as a pivotal testbed for AI research, mature superhuman AI systems like AlphaZero, and precise measurements of skill via chess rating systems. Previous work in modeling human decision-making in chess uses completely independent models to capture human style at different skill levels, meaning they lack coherence in their ability to adapt to the full spectrum of human improvement and are ultimately limited in their effectiveness as AI partners and teaching tools.

Deep neural networks excel in medical imaging but remain prone to biases, leading to fairness gaps across demographic groups. We provide the first systematic exploration of Human-AI alignment and fairness in this domain. Our results show that incorporating human insights consistently reduces fairness gaps and enhances out-of-domain generalization, though excessive alignment can introduce performance trade-offs, emphasizing the need for calibrated strategies. These findings highlight Human-AI alignment as a promising approach for developing fair, robust, and generalizable medical AI systems, striking a balance between expert guidance and automated efficiency. Our code is available at https://github.com/Roypic/Aligner.

Empirical human-AI alignment aims to make AI systems act in line with observed human behavior. While noble in its goals, we argue that empirical alignment can inadvertently introduce statistical biases that warrant caution. This position paper thus advocates against naive empirical alignment, offering prescriptive alignment and a posteriori empirical alignment as alternatives. We substantiate our principled argument by tangible examples like human-centric decoding of language models.

LLM-based applications are helping people write, and LLM-generated text is making its way into social media, journalism, and our classrooms. However, the differences between LLM-generated and human-written text remain unclear. To explore this, we hired professional writers to edit paragraphs in several creative domains. We first found these writers agree on undesirable idiosyncrasies in LLM-generated text, formalizing it into a seven-category taxonomy (e.g. cliches, unnecessary exposition). Second, we curated the LAMP corpus: 1,057 LLM-generated paragraphs edited by professional writers according to our taxonomy. Analysis of LAMP reveals that none of the LLMs used in our study (GPT4o, Claude-3.5-Sonnet, Llama-3.1-70b) outperform each other in terms of writing quality, revealing common limitations across model families. Third, we explored automatic editing methods to improve LLM-generated text. A large-scale preference annotation confirms that although experts largely prefer text edited by other experts, automatic editing methods show promise in improving alignment between LLM-generated and human-written text.

As AI systems become more advanced, ensuring their alignment with a diverse range of individuals and societal values becomes increasingly critical. But how can we capture fundamental human values and assess the degree to which AI systems align with them? We introduce ValueCompass, a framework of fundamental values, grounded in psychological theory and a systematic review, to identify and evaluate human-AI alignment. We apply ValueCompass to measure the value alignment of humans and language models (LMs) across four real-world vignettes: collaborative writing, education, public sectors, and healthcare. Our findings uncover risky misalignment between humans and LMs, such as LMs agreeing with values like "Choose Own Goals", which are largely disagreed by humans. We also observe values vary across vignettes, underscoring the necessity for context-aware AI alignment strategies. This work provides insights into the design space of human-AI alignment, offering foundations for developing AI that responsibly reflects societal values and ethics.

Achieving human-AI alignment in complex multi-agent games is crucial for creating trustworthy AI agents that enhance gameplay. We propose a method to evaluate this alignment using an interpretable task-sets framework, focusing on high-level behavioral tasks instead of low-level policies. Our approach has three components. First, we analyze extensive human gameplay data from Xbox's Bleeding Edge (100K+ games), uncovering behavioral patterns in a complex task space. This task space serves as a basis set for a behavior manifold capturing interpretable axes: fight-flight, explore-exploit, and solo-multi-agent. Second, we train an AI agent to play Bleeding Edge using a Generative Pretrained Causal Transformer and measure its behavior. Third, we project human and AI gameplay to the proposed behavior manifold to compare and contrast. This allows us to interpret differences in policy as higher-level behavioral concepts, e.g., we find that while human players exhibit variability in fight-flight and explore-exploit behavior, AI players tend towards uniformity. Furthermore, AI agents predominantly engage in solo play, while humans often engage in cooperative and competitive multi-agent patterns. These stark differences underscore the need for interpretable evaluation, design, and integration of AI in human-aligned applications. Our study advances the alignment discussion in AI and especially generative AI research, offering a measurable framework for interpretable human-agent alignment in multiplayer gaming.

We are currently unable to specify human goals and societal values in a way that reliably directs AI behavior. Law-making and legal interpretation form a computational engine that converts opaque human values into legible directives. "Law Informs Code" is the research agenda embedding legal knowledge and reasoning in AI. Similar to how parties to a legal contract cannot foresee every potential contingency of their future relationship, and legislators cannot predict all the circumstances under which their proposed bills will be applied, we cannot ex ante specify rules that provably direct good AI behavior. Legal theory and practice have developed arrays of tools to address these specification problems. For instance, legal standards allow humans to develop shared understandings and adapt them to novel situations. In contrast to more prosaic uses of the law (e.g., as a deterrent of bad behavior through the threat of sanction), leveraged as an expression of how humans communicate their goals, and what society values, Law Informs Code. We describe how data generated by legal processes (methods of law-making, statutory interpretation, contract drafting, applications of legal standards, legal reasoning, etc.) can facilitate the robust specification of inherently vague human goals. This increases human-AI alignment and the local usefulness of AI. Toward society-AI alignment, we present a framework for understanding law as the applied philosophy of multi-agent alignment. Although law is partly a reflection of historically contingent political power - and thus not a perfect aggregation of citizen preferences - if properly parsed, its distillation offers the most legitimate computational comprehension of societal values available. If law eventually informs powerful AI, engaging in the deliberative political process to improve law takes on even more meaning.