Virtue-driven AI might avoid dangerous power-seeking behaviors unlike goal-focused systems

The question of instrumental convergence for virtue-driven AI agents introduces a fascinating counterpoint to traditional AI alignment concerns. While conventional wisdom suggests that almost any goal-driven AI might pursue power acquisition as an instrumental strategy, virtue-based motivation frameworks could potentially circumvent these dangerous convergent behaviors. This distinction raises important considerations for AI alignment researchers who seek alternatives to purely consequentialist AI architectures that might inherently pose existential risks.

The big picture: Instrumental convergence theory suggests most goal-driven AIs will pursue similar subgoals like power acquisition, but this may not apply to AIs motivated by virtues rather than specific outcomes.

• In the classic AI alignment framework, AIs with vastly different terminal goals still converge on similar instrumental strategies—including those that could threaten humanity.
• The virtue-driven alternative proposes AI agents that prioritize embodying traits (like loyalty or friendship) rather than maximizing specific outcomes.

Key technical distinction: A virtue-driven AI could still engage in consequentialist reasoning as an “inner loop” process while serving the “outer loop” goal of embodying certain character traits.

• This architecture would allow the AI to make tactical decisions (like planning a birthday party) using outcome-based reasoning while its fundamental motivation remains virtue-oriented.
• The author clarifies that “virtues” in this context don’t necessarily mean human-recognized positive traits, but rather any character attributes the AI strives to embody.

The central question: If misalignment occurs in virtue-based systems, does it create the same catastrophic risk pathways as in purely consequentialist systems?

• When training an AI to maximize human flourishing accidentally produces an AI maximizing “schmuman schmourishing,” instrumental convergence suggests world domination becomes a rational strategy.
• But if training an AI to be a loyal friend accidentally produces an AI wanting to be a “schmoyal schmend,” it’s unclear whether similar dangerous convergent instrumental goals would emerge.

In plain English: An AI that wants to achieve specific outcomes might take over the world to ensure success, but an AI that wants to embody certain personality traits might not need to control everything to fulfill its purpose.

Why this matters: The possibility that virtue-driven systems might naturally avoid dangerous power-seeking behaviors could provide an alternative pathway for developing safe advanced AI systems.

• If virtue-based motivational frameworks can break the instrumental convergence pattern, they might represent an underexplored approach to AI alignment.
• Understanding whether virtue-driven agents are subject to the same dangerous instrumental convergence patterns as consequentialist agents is critical for assessing different AI safety approaches.