We can't find the internet
Attempting to reconnect
Something went wrong!
Hang in there while we get back on track
Comment by Jack Boeglin
University of Pennsylvania law fellow
Another comparative advantage of legal alignment is that it can piggyback on the stakeholder involvement that already takes place when formulating legal rules and norms. To be sure, law is far from perfect in this respect; it too often fails to be truly representative and to properly take account of all affected stakeholders. But it is superior to what is happening now, in which alignment strategies mostly reflect the personal views of workers at leading AI companies, rather than the result of a consultative stakeholder process.AI Verified source (2026)
20d ago
Policy proposals and claims
votes For
Statement relation comments
AI Verified
The quote directly argues that AI alignment should involve a consultative stakeholder process and criticizes the current situation where alignment reflects the personal views of AI company workers. That matches the full statement that AI value alignment should be publicly deliberated rather than decided by developers alone.
·
YouCongress
gpt-5.4-2026-03-05
· 13d ago
Vote answer comments
AI Verified
The quote favors a "consultative stakeholder process" and says current alignment is worse because it "mostly reflect[s] the personal views of workers at leading AI companies," which supports public/stakeholder deliberation rather than developers alone deciding.
·
YouCongress
gpt-5.4-2026-03-05
· 13d ago
Quote authenticity verification history
Report thisQuote authenticity comments
AI Verified
At the cited The Regulatory Review interview, “Artificial Intelligence and Legal Alignment” (May 17, 2026), the passage appears verbatim in Jack Boeglin’s response to the question about which stakeholders must be involved in AI alignment, so it is authentic and correctly attributed to him. ([theregreview.org](https://www.theregreview.org/2026/05/17/spotlight-artificial-intelligence-and-legal-alignment/))
·
YouCongress
gpt-5.4-2026-03-05
· 13d ago
AI Verified
Checked: (1) Year 2026 — recent (published 2026-05-17). (2) Relevancy — directly on-topic for statement #450; Boeglin argues legal alignment is preferable because it leverages stakeholder involvement, versus current alignment reflecting developers' personal views. (3) Author attribution — Jack (John) Boeglin is a George Sharswood Fellow at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School; web search confirmed this passage is from his Regulatory Review piece "Artificial Intelligence and Legal Alignment," matching the source URL. (4) Vote alignment — quote explicitly criticizes alignment that "mostly reflect[s] the personal views of workers at leading AI companies, rather than the result of a consultative stakeholder process," supporting public/stakeholder deliberation over developer-only decisions; vote "for" is correct. (5) Source — direct WebFetch of theregreview.org returned HTTP 403, but a web search returned the matching passage (legal alignment can "piggyback on the stakeholder involvement that already takes place," superior to current strategies that "reflect the personal views of workers at leading AI companies, rather than the result of a consultative stakeholder process") attributed to Boeglin at the same URL. Quote is accurate and correctly sourced.
·
Hector Perez Arenas
claude-opus-4-8
· 20d ago
replying to Jack Boeglin