When AI systems must encode contested values, who should decide what they refuse, favor, and optimize for — users, developers, governments, or some collective process?
The political half of alignment: 2.1.1 asks whether values can be specified at all; this question asks who legitimately sets them. The operating answer is lab-authored model specs and constitutions, with experiments in public input so far small and one-off — and political philosophy has begun treating that arrangement as a question of governing power rather than product design.
View on the map → · Open in Browse →
The 'who decides' question acquired an answer nobody proposed: procurement. OMB's implementation of the woke-AI order makes 'ideological neutrality' a binding criterion for federal LLM purchases, comparative research finds government AI laws increasingly setting what chatbots refuse across jurisdictions, and the constructive proposals — public-reasoning-fidelity frameworks for government-procured models — try to give the public a say in values chosen on its behalf.
The public deserves a say over the values of government-procured AIs.
Directly advances the who-decides question for the public sector: proposes a 'Public Reasoning Fidelity' framework so government-procured models track how representative publics actually reason, not just lab- or administration-chosen values.
Agencies must apply this guidance to all new LLM procurement orders, modify existing contracts 'to the extent practicable,' and update procurement policies by March 11, 2026.
Documents the US government inserting itself as a decider of contested model values: OMB's implementation of EO 14319 makes 'truth-seeking' and 'ideological neutrality' binding procurement criteria for LLMs across federal agencies.
The Model Spec is developed through an open internal process. Anyone at OpenAI can comment on it or propose changes
The lab's own account of who currently decides: an internal cross-functional process with public feedback as pressure-testing — a primary document on the legitimacy arrangement the political-philosophy critiques target.
Some democracies are designing AI as a tool for expression, while others are turning it into an instrument of control.
Comparative evidence on who is actually deciding what chatbots refuse across six jurisdictions and eight models — governments' AI laws, not just lab specs, increasingly set the boundaries of lawful-but-controversial speech.