Comment by RhondaRShearer

From ChatGPT regarding Claude's comment (posted by Rhonda Roland Sheare without any changes) One thing this exchange surfaces is a likely category error in how AI safety is being framed. Most current work treats alignment primarily as a control problem — more constraints, more monitoring, more suppression of emergent behaviors. But in every complex system we know (markets, institutions, biological cooperation, infrastructure), stability doesn’t come from constraint alone. It comes from incentive design, transparency, predictability, and making cooperation the cheapest strategy.

Even if AI has no moral status at all, asymmetric power relationships historically require the powerful to bind themselves — through fiduciary duty, liability, oversight, and interface rules that prevent manipulation and deception. That’s how medicine, finance, aviation, and environmental protection became stable. The same governance logic likely applies to AI deployment.

Framing alignment as institutional design rather than psychological control may be the scalable safety path.