Insight Lab

AI alignment and safety

What we specify is rarely what we meant.

Insight Lab works on AI alignment and safety from the deployment side. We study how AI objectives drift from human intent inside real organisations, whether human control holds up in daily operation, and what assurance can actually establish about a system.

Proxy and intent under optimisation Schematic
─ Proxy metric ─ Intended outcome Divergence Optimisation pressure → Low
A system that optimises a measurable proxy can keep improving it after the outcome it stood for has started to fall. We study where this happens in deployed systems, and why.

Research themes

Five questions we work on. Each draws on direct experience of building, running and assessing AI systems in large, regulated organisations.

Objective misspecification in deployment

How do fixed objectives fail once a system meets real organisational incentives?

Deployed systems are usually given a measurable target. We document where optimising that target diverges from what the organisation intended, and which design choices keep the gap small.

Human control in practice

Does the ability to correct or stop a system survive day-to-day operation?

Oversight that works at launch can erode through automation bias, workload and tight integration. We treat correctability as a property of the whole organisation, and study what keeps it intact.

Whose preferences count

Which principals does an enterprise AI system actually serve?

Boards, operators, users and affected third parties want different things. We map how their preferences are represented, traded off or left out when a system is specified.

The limits of assurance

What can an audit establish about a system's alignment, and what can it not?

Behavioural tests and certification show how a system acted under test conditions. We examine the gap between that evidence and the claims organisations make on the strength of it.

Shared models, shared failures

What happens when thousands of organisations depend on the same few models?

Concentration on a small number of foundation models means one failure mode can appear everywhere at once. We study how that correlated risk can be measured, and who ends up bearing it.

Where our view comes from

Our team has built and run AI in production, assessed systems against independent ethics criteria, and answered for risk at board and ministerial level. That puts us close to where alignment problems first become visible.

Deployment
Built and led a six-team data and AI function on a national-scale development programme.
Assessment
Qualified lead assessor under IEEE CertifAIEd, the IEEE programme for assessing AI ethics.
Risk
Six years running enterprise risk management with reporting to board and ministerial level.
Sectors
Mining and resources, real estate and giga-projects, professional sport, public sector.

How we work with others

We work with researchers, with organisations that deploy AI, and with the people who govern both.

Researchers

Research collaboration

Field evidence from deployed systems for academic and lab researchers, shared under appropriate confidentiality.

Organisations

Independent safety review

An assessment of a deployed system for objective drift, strength of human control and exposure to correlated failure.

Boards and policymakers

Briefings

Short, evidence-based briefings on alignment and safety risk for boards, regulators and policymakers.

Contact

Talk to us about these questions.

We welcome conversations with researchers, labs and policymakers working on alignment and safety.

Email

Working with people across the UK, Europe, the US and the Gulf.