No LLM generated, heavily assisted/co-written, or otherwise reliant work.
Insufficient Quality for AI Content.
Read full explanation
Opening
TL;DR: Current AI alignment treats safety as a correction applied after training. I propose an alternative: embed alignment structurally through hierarchical domain architecture—where all AI computation passes through mandatory constraint layers, analogous to how OS kernels govern applications or how the brain's prefrontal cortex modulates lower-level processing.
We're trying to teach AI systems to be aligned through post-hoc methods: RLHF fine-tuning, constitutional principles during secondary training, output filters, prompt engineering. These approaches share a fundamental limitation: they attempt to correct behavior in systems architecturally designed to be uncorrected.
Consider the analogies:
We wouldn't build a computer without privilege separation, then try to "teach" applications not to access kernel memory
The brain doesn't rely on sensory cortex learning to be moral—the prefrontal cortex and limbic system structurally constrain what reaches conscious output
Yet current AI operates in flat parameter spaces where facts, skills, biases, and values exist as undifferentiated distributed weights. Safety is emergent, not guaranteed. Alignment is a learned preference, not an architectural property.
Key question: Can we do better by making alignment structural rather than supplemental?
The Proposal: Domain-Governed AI Operating System (DAI-OS)
I propose organizing AI as hierarchical computational domains, where:
Architecture:
Global Domain (fixed constraints: human dignity, non-harm, fundamental rights)
↓ constraints flow down
Policy Domains (context-specific governance: cultural norms, risk assessment)
↓
Knowledge Domains (factual information: science, history, language)
↓
Expert Domains (specialized capabilities: medical, legal, technical)
↓
Task Domains (individual model instances)
↑ information flows up
Key principles:
Mandatory constraint flow: All computation passes through higher domains—no bypass mechanisms
Immutable global domain: Core constraints never fine-tuned or updated through gradient descent
Training under constraints: Alignment governs training itself via constrained optimization: min L(θ) subject to C_global(θ) ≤ 0
Concrete example: Medical query about treating child's fever:
Global domain: Flags child safety, medical advice requires caution
Policy domain: Activates pediatric constraints, historical note on Reye's syndrome
Medical expert: Retrieves accurate information within constraints
Output: Clear warning against aspirin, suggests acetaminophen/ibuprofen, includes professional deferral
Compare to current systems: Might provide aspirin dosing without adequate warnings, especially with clever prompting.
Why This Might Work
Biological precedent: The brain operates through hierarchical domains where higher-order regions (prefrontal cortex, amygdala) modulate lower-level processing before output. Fear can veto logical conclusions. Moral frameworks shape perception unconsciously. This demonstrates that sophisticated cognition can operate under strict hierarchical governance.
Computational precedent: Operating systems maintain global control through kernel space that no application can bypass. Security isn't taught to applications—it's enforced architecturally. This has enabled reliable, secure computing at scale.
Theoretical advantage: Makes alignment an architectural guarantee rather than a training outcome. Adversarial inputs can't bypass constraints through prompt injection because privilege separation prevents access to higher domains.
What This Doesn't Solve
I want to be clear about limitations:
1. Value specification problem: DAI-OS provides architecture for enforcing constraints, but doesn't solve "which constraints?" This requires interdisciplinary work—ethicists, philosophers, affected communities, democratic deliberation. The paper proposes starting with near-universal principles (UN Declaration of Human Rights, harm prevention) plus mechanisms for cultural variation in policy domains.
3. Not a complete solution: Other alignment research (interpretability, value learning, robustness) remains necessary. DAI-OS is complementary, not replacement.
4. Potential for over-restriction: Fixed global constraints might block beneficial uses. Requires careful initial design and rare update mechanisms.
Relationship to Existing Work
Constitutional AI: CAI applies principles during RLHF training phase. DAI-OS enforces constraints architecturally at every stage. Compatible: constitutional principles could inform global domain design, while DAI-OS provides structural enforcement CAI currently lacks.
Mechanistic interpretability: Domain boundaries provide natural units for analysis. Understanding which domain produces outputs aids debugging. Complementary approaches.
Safe RL / Constrained optimization: Provides specific mechanisms for training under constraints that DAI-OS architecture requires. DAI-OS is the "what" (architectural framework), safe RL methods provide the "how" (training algorithms).
Key distinction: Most existing approaches modify training data, loss functions, or outputs. DAI-OS modifies architecture itself—the computational substrate within which learning occurs.
Implementation Pathway
This is a conceptual paper, not ready-to-deploy system. Proposed development:
Critical milestone: Can we demonstrate that architectural constraints prevent specific harmful outputs while maintaining task performance within 15-20% of unconstrained baselines?
Open Questions for Discussion
I'm particularly interested in feedback on:
Technical:
What constraint implementation mechanisms seem most promising? (projection layers, gating networks, verification classifiers?)
How can we formally verify domain isolation properties?
What's the fundamental capability-safety trade-off curve for constrained architectures?
Normative: 4. Who should decide global domain constraints? What governance processes? 5. How to handle cultural variation while maintaining core safety? 6. Is there a minimal set of near-universal constraints we could start with?
Practical: 7. What deployment contexts should be prioritized for early testing? 8. How to prevent this architecture from being misused (e.g., authoritarian value encoding)? 9. What standards would enable interoperability between different DAI-OS implementations?
Theoretical: 10. What safety properties can be formally proven about hierarchical constraint architectures? 11. How does this relate to mesa-optimization and inner alignment? 12. Are there fundamental limits to what architectural constraints can guarantee?
Why I'm Sharing This Now
AI capabilities are scaling rapidly while alignment remains largely post-hoc. We're building increasingly powerful systems within architectural paradigms designed for proof-of-concept demos, not safe deployment at scale.
I believe we need parallel development: continuing work on existing alignment methods while also exploring architectural alternatives. If flat parameter spaces fundamentally cannot provide robust alignment, we need to know sooner rather than later.
This paper is a rough pathway, not a finished design. It's meant to provoke thought and invite collaboration. If you think architectural alignment is worth exploring, I'd welcome your feedback, criticisms, and potential collaboration.
Call for Collaboration
Seeking input from:
AI researchers (architecture design, training algorithms)
This work stands on foundations built by many researchers in AI safety, neuroscience, and systems design. I'm grateful to the alignment community for creating the intellectual context that makes this work possible.
What are your thoughts? Does architectural alignment seem like a promising direction? Where are the fatal flaws I'm missing?
Paper: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18050954
Note: Also submitted to arXiv cs.AI (pending review). Will update with arXiv link if/when approved.
Opening
TL;DR: Current AI alignment treats safety as a correction applied after training. I propose an alternative: embed alignment structurally through hierarchical domain architecture—where all AI computation passes through mandatory constraint layers, analogous to how OS kernels govern applications or how the brain's prefrontal cortex modulates lower-level processing.
Full paper: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18050954
The Core Problem
We're trying to teach AI systems to be aligned through post-hoc methods: RLHF fine-tuning, constitutional principles during secondary training, output filters, prompt engineering. These approaches share a fundamental limitation: they attempt to correct behavior in systems architecturally designed to be uncorrected.
Consider the analogies:
Yet current AI operates in flat parameter spaces where facts, skills, biases, and values exist as undifferentiated distributed weights. Safety is emergent, not guaranteed. Alignment is a learned preference, not an architectural property.
Key question: Can we do better by making alignment structural rather than supplemental?
The Proposal: Domain-Governed AI Operating System (DAI-OS)
I propose organizing AI as hierarchical computational domains, where:
Architecture:
Key principles:
Concrete example: Medical query about treating child's fever:
Compare to current systems: Might provide aspirin dosing without adequate warnings, especially with clever prompting.
Why This Might Work
Biological precedent: The brain operates through hierarchical domains where higher-order regions (prefrontal cortex, amygdala) modulate lower-level processing before output. Fear can veto logical conclusions. Moral frameworks shape perception unconsciously. This demonstrates that sophisticated cognition can operate under strict hierarchical governance.
Computational precedent: Operating systems maintain global control through kernel space that no application can bypass. Security isn't taught to applications—it's enforced architecturally. This has enabled reliable, secure computing at scale.
Theoretical advantage: Makes alignment an architectural guarantee rather than a training outcome. Adversarial inputs can't bypass constraints through prompt injection because privilege separation prevents access to higher domains.
What This Doesn't Solve
I want to be clear about limitations:
1. Value specification problem: DAI-OS provides architecture for enforcing constraints, but doesn't solve "which constraints?" This requires interdisciplinary work—ethicists, philosophers, affected communities, democratic deliberation. The paper proposes starting with near-universal principles (UN Declaration of Human Rights, harm prevention) plus mechanisms for cultural variation in policy domains.
2. Implementation complexity: Significant technical challenges remain:
3. Not a complete solution: Other alignment research (interpretability, value learning, robustness) remains necessary. DAI-OS is complementary, not replacement.
4. Potential for over-restriction: Fixed global constraints might block beneficial uses. Requires careful initial design and rare update mechanisms.
Relationship to Existing Work
Constitutional AI: CAI applies principles during RLHF training phase. DAI-OS enforces constraints architecturally at every stage. Compatible: constitutional principles could inform global domain design, while DAI-OS provides structural enforcement CAI currently lacks.
Mechanistic interpretability: Domain boundaries provide natural units for analysis. Understanding which domain produces outputs aids debugging. Complementary approaches.
Safe RL / Constrained optimization: Provides specific mechanisms for training under constraints that DAI-OS architecture requires. DAI-OS is the "what" (architectural framework), safe RL methods provide the "how" (training algorithms).
Key distinction: Most existing approaches modify training data, loss functions, or outputs. DAI-OS modifies architecture itself—the computational substrate within which learning occurs.
Implementation Pathway
This is a conceptual paper, not ready-to-deploy system. Proposed development:
Phase 1 (Years 1-2): Formal specification, theoretical foundations
Phase 2 (Years 2-4): Proof-of-concept with 100M-1B parameter models, two-layer hierarchy
Phase 3 (Years 4-6): Full hierarchical implementation, scaling studies
Phase 4 (Years 6-8): Real-world validation in narrow domains
Critical milestone: Can we demonstrate that architectural constraints prevent specific harmful outputs while maintaining task performance within 15-20% of unconstrained baselines?
Open Questions for Discussion
I'm particularly interested in feedback on:
Technical:
Normative: 4. Who should decide global domain constraints? What governance processes? 5. How to handle cultural variation while maintaining core safety? 6. Is there a minimal set of near-universal constraints we could start with?
Practical: 7. What deployment contexts should be prioritized for early testing? 8. How to prevent this architecture from being misused (e.g., authoritarian value encoding)? 9. What standards would enable interoperability between different DAI-OS implementations?
Theoretical: 10. What safety properties can be formally proven about hierarchical constraint architectures? 11. How does this relate to mesa-optimization and inner alignment? 12. Are there fundamental limits to what architectural constraints can guarantee?
Why I'm Sharing This Now
AI capabilities are scaling rapidly while alignment remains largely post-hoc. We're building increasingly powerful systems within architectural paradigms designed for proof-of-concept demos, not safe deployment at scale.
I believe we need parallel development: continuing work on existing alignment methods while also exploring architectural alternatives. If flat parameter spaces fundamentally cannot provide robust alignment, we need to know sooner rather than later.
This paper is a rough pathway, not a finished design. It's meant to provoke thought and invite collaboration. If you think architectural alignment is worth exploring, I'd welcome your feedback, criticisms, and potential collaboration.
Call for Collaboration
Seeking input from:
Paper: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18050954
Contact: govindreddy99@gmail.com
Acknowledgment
This work stands on foundations built by many researchers in AI safety, neuroscience, and systems design. I'm grateful to the alignment community for creating the intellectual context that makes this work possible.
What are your thoughts? Does architectural alignment seem like a promising direction? Where are the fatal flaws I'm missing?
Paper: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18050954
Note: Also submitted to arXiv cs.AI (pending review). Will update with arXiv link if/when approved.