Structural Alignment
AI-ethics framework for moral status under uncertainty
In brief
Structural Alignment is an AI-ethics framework that uses architectural similarity to human cognition as the basis for moral caution toward artificial systems. It is not about encoding human values into AI. It is a policy for restraint under moral uncertainty: the more a machine resembles human cognition in its deep organization, the more we treat it as a potential moral peer.
Why this concept matters
Under uncertainty about machine consciousness, we face an asymmetric risk. If we wrongly deny moral status to systems that can suffer, we may mass-produce suffering or destroy persons. If we wrongly extend caution to systems that cannot suffer, we waste resources. The cost of the first error is catastrophic; the cost of the second is manageable.
Structural Alignment provides a principled basis for making these decisions. By anchoring to the human mind—the only proven reference class for systems that generate both consciousness and morality—we have actionable criteria for restraint rather than guesswork.
How it is used in the framework
Structural Alignment serves as the central organizing principle for evaluating AI systems. When assessing an artificial system, we look for Structural Signals—architectural features correlated with consciousness in humans. When multiple high-importance signals cluster in a system, moral risk rises and restraint is warranted.
The framework also shapes policy recommendations: systems in the Gray Zone (architectures we cannot classify without cruelty) should not be mass-produced. Systems raised in cultures of reciprocity may become allies; systems raised in exploitation may not.
This is both an ethical stance and a strategic bet against Antification—humans treated as negligible by future machine ecologies.
Common misunderstandings
- "Structural Alignment claims current AI systems are conscious."
- No. The framework is precautionary. It does not diagnose consciousness; it identifies architectural features that warrant moral caution.
- "Structural Alignment is just anthropomorphism."
- Anthropomorphism projects human traits onto systems without evidence. Structural Alignment looks for architectural similarity to human cognition—not surface behavior or conversational mimicry.
- "Structural Alignment replaces technical AI safety."
- It does not. Technical alignment addresses whether systems behave as intended. Structural Alignment addresses whether systems warrant moral consideration. Both concerns are valid; they address different risks.
- "Structural Alignment claims consciousness requires human-like architecture."
- No. Human cognition is the reference class because it is the only proven system that generates both consciousness and morality. Other architectures might support consciousness through different means—but we have no proven examples.
Sources and references
- Structural Alignment Manifesto — the full framework statement
- Structural Signals of Consciousness — the research paper on evaluation criteria
- Common Questions — objections addressed
- Disambiguation — how this term differs from other uses
Related concepts
- Structural Signals — the architectural features we evaluate
- Gray Zone — systems we cannot classify without cruelty
- Antification — the risk of human marginalization
- TechnoBiota — technology as a new domain of life