This paper critically evaluates the attempts to align Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems, especially Large Language Models (LLMs), with human values and intentions through Reinforcement Learning from Feedback methods, involving either human feedback (RLHF) or AI feedback (RLAIF). Specifically, we show the shortcomings of the broadly pursued alignment goals of honesty, harmlessness, and helpfulness. Through a multidisciplinary sociotechnical critique, we examine both the theoretical underpinnings and practical implementations of RLHF techniques, revealing significant limitations in their approach to capturing the complexities of human ethics, and contributing to AI safety. We highlight tensions inherent in the goals of RLHF, as captured in the HHH principle (helpful, harmless and honest). In addition, we discuss ethically-relevant issues that tend to be neglected in discussions about alignment and RLHF, among which the trade-offs between user-friendliness and deception, flexibility and interpretability, and system safety. We offer an alternative vision for AI safety and ethics which positions RLHF approaches within a broader context of comprehensive design across institutions, processes and technological systems, and suggest the establishment of AI safety as a sociotechnical discipline that is open to the normative and political dimensions of artificial intelligence.

This article explores the rapidly developing field of Critical AI Studies and its relation to issues of class and capitalism through a hybrid approach based on distant reading of a newly collected corpus of 300 full-text scientific articles, the creation of which is itself a first attempt at properly delineating the field. We find that words related to issues of class are predominantly but not exclusively confined to a set of studies that make up their own distinct subfield of Critical AI Studies, in contrast to, e.g., issues of race and gender, which are more broadly present in the corpus.