aiqbench analysis
This paper reframes AI alignment by applying fiduciary theory—specifically duties of loyalty, care, good faith, and candor—to the developer-user relationship in extended assistant deployments. It argues that these legal obligations provide a robust grounding for safety criteria independent of actual user harm or specific value promotion goals. By mapping risks to canonical business ethics frameworks, the work offers institutional measures for managing long-term interactions where developers retain discretionary control over system behavior.
AI Alignment and Fiduciary Obligation
arXiv:2608.02660v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Advanced AI assistants engage users in extended interactions across a widening range of roles, including advice, decision support, collaboration, learning, emotional support, and companionship among others. Current alignment efforts consider what alignment criteria should govern these relationships, drawing on moral traditions developed for human relationships such as bioethics, virtue ethics, care ethics, and relationship science. This paper considers AI alignment criteria in the user-AI-developer triad, since every user-AI interaction is mediated by a developer who exercises discretionary control over a system's behaviour, memory, and engagement parameters. Drawing on business ethics and legal scholarship, I argue that fiduciary theory applies to extended AI assistant deployment. On this basis, the four canonical fiduciary duties of loyalty, care, good faith, and candour can generate alignment criteria for the developer-user relationship. I map four user-side risks of extended AI assistant deployment to the four duties and specify institutional measures that follow from discharging each duty. The discussion complements existing approaches by grounding alignment criteria in obligations the developer owes the user, rather than in values the user-AI interaction should promote, and by showing that those obligations hold independently of any \textit{de facto} harm to users.
Abstract:Advanced AI assistants engage users in extended interactions across a widening range of roles, including advice, decision support, collaboration, learning, emotional support, and companionship among others. Current alignment efforts consider what alignment criteria should govern these relationships, drawing on moral traditions developed for human relationships such as bioethics, virtue ethics, care ethics, and relationship science. This paper considers AI alignment criteria in the user-AI-developer triad, since every user-AI interaction is mediated by a developer who exercises discretionary control over a system's behaviour, memory, and engagement parameters. Drawing on business ethics and legal scholarship, I argue that fiduciary theory applies to extended AI assistant deployment. On this basis, the four canonical fiduciary duties of loyalty, care, good faith, and candour can generate alignment criteria for the developer-user relationship. I map four user-side risks of extended AI assistant deployment to the four duties and specify institutional measures that follow from discharging each duty. The discussion complements existing approaches by grounding alignment criteria in obligations the developer owes the user, rather than in values the user-AI interaction should promote, and by showing that those obligations hold independently of any \textit{de facto} harm to users.
10 pages, 1 table. Accepted at the 9th AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society (AIES 2026)
Computers and Society (cs.CY); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Human-Computer Interaction (cs.HC)
arXiv:2608.02660 [cs.CY]
(or arXiv:2608.02660v1 [cs.CY] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.02660 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 307 words
Related coverage
Coalitional Darwinism and the Instrumental Utility of Individuality
LessWrong · Jun 6, 2026

The basic argument for making AI better at moral philosophy
LessWrong · Oct 14, 2026
Alignment & Succession: Toward a Future Painted by Human Wills
LessWrong · Sep 19, 2026

Deconfusing Corrigibility
AI Alignment Forum · Oct 17, 2026