AI Value Judgment from the Perspective of Hume's Law: A Critical Inquiry

Value Alignment Engineering for AI aims to turn human normative demands into computable parameters. But there are problems with the conflict between ethical principles and disagreements in RLHF annotation. Therefore, this paper investigates the problem of whether AI can generate values with normative force. Hume's Law is a mistake in the reasoning about facts and values. A system to solve this problem is provided. The content of this paper is as follows: An AI system for answering questions and deriving values in accordance with a specific norm. This paper provides a formal reconstruction of Hume's Law as a constraint on AI value alignment; conducts architectural analysis to show how value judgments undergo 'factual degradation' in Transformer-based systems; and puts forward practical recommendations to transition from 'preference aggregation' to 'preference identification' in the RLHF pipeline. The first premise is to rebuild Hume's Law logically. It also responds to the earlier criticisms of "promises" by Searle and "thick ethical concepts" by Putnam to defend the authority of law. The second proposition is the statistics of Transformer-based AI. Therefore, even after introducing value judgments in the model (corpus input or RLHF fine-tuning), they are transformed into statistical facts of vectors and probabilities. Based on the reasons given above, this paper believes that there is a structural defect in the current value alignment. The limit is due to the value-gap problem in Hume's Law. Although AI has some real-world applications in ethical assistance, we should be careful not to have it independently generate values and assume moral responsibility.