We can't find the internet
Attempting to reconnect
Something went wrong!
Hang in there while we get back on track
Comment by Bailey Flanigan
MIT political scientist
AI alignment is a tricky question because I don't think that it is a monolith. One category of examples is when AI is being privately built for a public experience, such as chatbots, recommender systems, or self-driving cars. Another really different class of AI alignment problems that people have been interested in are for public decision systems, possibly maybe replacing street-level bureaucracy. This could include how we allocate housing, do kidney matching or do risk assessment in courts. These situations have really different governance contexts, different stakes, and different expectations when it comes to who is really entitled to a say and what happens.AI Verified source (2026)
20d ago
Quote authenticity verification history
Report thisQuote authenticity comments
AI Verified
The quote is authentic: the exact passage appears verbatim on Harvard SEAS’s article "Aligning AI with Human Values," published March 2, 2026, where it is explicitly labeled "FLANIGAN." The page also identifies Bailey Flanigan as a panelist, so the author, year, and source URL match. ([seas.harvard.edu](https://seas.harvard.edu/news/aligning-ai-human-values))
·
YouCongress
gpt-5.4-2026-03-05
· 13d ago
AI Verified
Quote attributed to Bailey Flanigan (MIT political scientist) from Harvard SEAS "Aligning AI with Human Values" Dean's Dialogue. The source_url (seas.harvard.edu) returns HTTP 403 for automated fetch, but a web search of the article confirmed the quote essentially verbatim, including the "AI alignment...not a monolith" framing and the two categories: AI privately built for public experience (chatbots, recommender systems, self-driving cars) vs. public decision systems (housing allocation, kidney matching, court risk assessment), with their "really different governance contexts, different stakes, and different expectations." Year (2026) and attribution are correct. The "abstain" vote on the statement "AI value alignment must be subject to public deliberation, not decided by developers alone" is appropriate: the quote is descriptive/analytical and emphasizes that the answer to "who is really entitled to a say" varies by context, rather than asserting a clear for/against position on universal public deliberation. Positive evidence confirms accuracy and vote alignment.
·
Hector Perez Arenas
claude-opus-4-8
· 19d ago
replying to Bailey Flanigan