The paper argues that this trend warrants a re-examination of Verbeek’s framework for its capacity to explain the co-evolution of technology and morality in the digital age, and it envisions a future of human–machine value co-evolution organized around new research directions such as “Setting as Governance” and “value homeostasis mechanisms”.
Abstract
This study conducts a technical analysis of frontier generative AI algorithms—including Meta’s Self-Rewarding Language Models, DeepMind’s EVA (Evolving Alignment via Asymmetric Self-Play) framework, and DeepSeek’s pure reinforcement-learning models—in order to examine an intrinsic paradigm shift in the ethical governance of generative artificial intelligence and to advance a physicalist analysis of algorithmic endogenous ethics. Combining a close reading of alignment techniques (RLHF, DPO, iterative DPO, GRPO) with a conceptual analysis grounded in Peter-Paul Verbeek’s theory of technological mediation and moral materialization, the paper traces how value-alignment goals are being “materialized” into internal, dynamic, and evolvable “moral scripts” within the algorithms themselves. The analysis shows that contemporary alignment practices are moving from external ethical discipline toward endogenous norms generated through iterative self-evaluation, asymmetric self-play, and rule-based self-exploration. The paper argues that this trend warrants a re-examination of Verbeek’s framework for its capacity to explain the co-evolution of technology and morality in the digital age, and it envisions a future of human–machine value co-evolution organized around new research directions such as “Setting as Governance” and “value homeostasis mechanisms”.
The argument further holds that AI does not possess moral agency in the classical sense but functions as an infrastructural precondition for the reconfiguration of normative hierarchies—in an empirical rather than transcendental sense.
The paper’s central argumentative shift is to change the narrative from bias mitigation to bias management—treating bias not as a defect to be corrected but as an ongoing condition to be governed.
Gabriela Arriagada-Bruneau· Science and Engineering Ethi...· 0 citations
The findings reveal that 2023 represents a pivotal turning point in generative AI ethics research ; by 2025, the human-centered theme of ‘education and cognitive literacy’ had surpassed the long-dominant topic of ‘law and governmental regulation’ in publication volume.
Zhi-Qi Deng, Hong Zhang, Su Tao· Discover Artificial Intellig...· 0 citations
The rise of agentic AI systems, which are autonomous, proactive, and capable of multi-step task execution, has transformed how individuals interact with intelligent technologies. While these systems promise efficiency and enhanced decisionmaking, they also introduce new ethical vulnerabilities. This study investigates...
Yasser Al Helaly, A. Ashofteh· Annual International Compute...· 0 citations
It is argued that demonstrating internal incoherence is a necessary precursor to AI alignment as well as a broader phenomenon of epistemic instability in generative AI wherein models fail to reliably maintain coherence with respect to their own prior outputs.
Pegah Nokhiz, Aravinda Kanchana Ruwanpathirana, Helen Nissenbaum· 0 citations
Why do we form moral judgments? One influential answer is that the human capacity for moral judgment is an evolutionary adaptation. P. Kyle Stanford argues that morality is adaptive because it leads individuals to externalize norms, prompting them to evaluate both their own behavior and that of potential partners by a...