A Value-Driven Framework for the Design of Ethically Aligned Artificial Intelligence Systems

AI systems are operating with increasing autonomy and capability in complex domains in the real world becoming more and more ubiquitous in ways that we do not understand yet. These systems will continue to become more complex and pervasive as they become more intelligent and newer applications are enabled. Increased autonomy in such systems means that they have the potential take actions that can be detrimental to humans within their increased sphere of interaction unless they are designed to be otherwise. Thus systems with AI capabilities urgently require better alignment with human values. This is called the AI Value alignment problem (AI VAP). In this paper, a framework for creating such an AI system is proposed based on the traditional Indian conceptualization of intelligence and values. Human values have been the foundation of Indian scriptures, including the Bhagwad Gita, Vedas, and the Upanishads. Values act as guidelines for our behavior. They have a significant influence on our personalities, attitudes, and perceptions. The traditional Indian philosophy offers a holistic perspective on intelligence and values by considering various aspects of human cognition and consciousness. The proposed framework for creating Value-aligned AI system based on these perspectives provides conceptualization of the different modules required to actually implement Value aligned AI systems. This makes the proposed framework different from those that provide high level ideas without delineating implementation aspects. A rudimentary case of AI value aligned system is also provided to illustrate ideas presented in the paper.

AI Value Alignment, ethically aligned, human values, cognitive framework

1. Allen, C., Smit, I., Wallach, W. (2005). Artificial morality: Top-down, bottom-up, and hybrid approaches. Ethics and information technology, 7(3),149–155. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Amodei, D., Olah, C., Steinhardt, J., Christiano, P., Schulman, J., Mané, D. (2016). Concrete problems in AI safety. arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.06565. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Asilomar AI Principles. (2017). Future of Life. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Benjamin, R. (2023). Race after technology. Social theory re-wired (pp. 405–415). Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Bulla, L., De Giorgis, S., Mongiovì, M., Gangemi, A. (2025). Large language models meet moral values: A comprehensive assessment of moral abilities. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 17,100609. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Christian, B. (2020). The alignment problem: Machine learning and human values. W W Norton and Company. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Christiano, P. (2017, Mar). Prosaic AI alignment. AI Alignment. Retrieved fromhttps://ai-alignment.com/prosaic-ai-control-b959644d79c2 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Dignum, V. (2018). Ethics in artificial intelligence: introduction to the special issue. Springer. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Eubanks, V.(2018). Automating inequality: How high-tech tools profile, police, and punish the poor. St. Martin’s Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Flanagan, M., Howe, D.C., Nissenbaum, H. (2008). Embodying values in technology: Theory and practice. Information technology and moral philosophy, 322,24. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Floridi, L., & Sanders, J.W. (2004).Onthemoralityofartificialagents. Minds and machines, 14(3), 349–379. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Gabriel, I. (2020). Artificial intelligence, values, and alignment. Minds and machines, 30(3), 411–437. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Geitgey, A. (2019, Sep). Faking the News with Natural Language Processing and GPT-2. Medium. Retrieved from https://medium.com/@ageitgey/deepfaking-the-news-with-nlp-andtransformer-models-5e057ebd697d [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Gill, A.S., & Germann, S. (2021). Conceptual and normative approaches to AI governance for a global digital ecosystem supportive of the unsustainable development goals (sdgs). AI and Ethics, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Gloor, P., Fronzetti Colladon, A., Grippa, F.(2022). Measuring ethical behavior with AI and natural language processing to assess business success. Scientific Reports, 12(1),10228. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Hibbard, B. (2012). Model-based utility functions. Journal of Artificial General Intelligence, 3(1),1–24. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Ibid (1938). Prashnaupanishad4.8.,25. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Irving, G., Christiano, P., Amodei, D. (2018). Ai safety via debate. arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.00899. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Kearns, M., & Roth, A. (2019). The ethical algorithm: The science of socially aware algorithm design. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Kim, W., & Lee, K. (2020). Building ethical ai from news articles. 2020 IEEE/itu international conference on artificial intelligence for good (ai4g) (pp.210–217). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Klenk, M. (2021). How do technological artefacts embody moral values? Philosophy & Technology, 34(3),525–544. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Kodiyan, A.A. (2019). An overview of ethical issues in using AI systems in hiring with a case study of amazon’s AI based hiring tool. Research gate Preprint. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Kroes, P., & Verbeek, P.-P. (2014). The moral status of technical artefacts (Vol.17). Springer. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Latour, B. (1993). We have never been modern (new york: Harvester wheatsheaf). Page Intentionally Left Blank. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Latour, B., et al. (1992). Where are the missing masses? The sociology of a few mundane artifacts. Shaping technology/building society: Studies in sociotechnical change, 1,225–258. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Lee, K.-F. (2018). Ai superpowers: China, silicon valley, and the new world order. HoughtonMifflin. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Leike, J., Krueger, D., Everitt, T., Martic, M., Maini, V., Legg, S.(2018).Scalable agent alignment via reward modeling: a research direction. arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.07871. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Maedche, A., Legner, C., Benlian, A., Berger, B., Gimpel, H., Hess, T. Söllner,M. (2019). AI-based digital assistants. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 61(4),535–544. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. McKinlay, J., De Vos, M., Hoffmann, J.A., Theodorou, A. (2025). Understanding the process of human-ai value alignment. arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.13854. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Miller,B.(2021).Is technology value-neutral? Science, Technology, & Human Values, 46(1),53–80. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Mullen, J. (2015, Jul). Google rushes to fix software that tagged photo with racial slur CNN business. Cable News Network. Retrieved from https://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/02/tech/google-imagerecognition-gorillas-tag/index.html [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Noble, S.U. (2018). Algorithms of oppression. Algorithms of oppression. New York university press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Ogunlere, S., & Adebayo, A. (2015,01). Ethical issues incomputing sciences. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. O’neil, C. (2017). Weapons of math destruction: How big data increases inequality and threatens democracy. Crown. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Pana, S.C., Schweppeb, J., Teoa, A.Z., Indrajayaa, A., Wenzeld, N. (2024). Using AI-generated prequestions to improve memory and text comprehension. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Paranjpe, A.C. (2013). The concept of dharma: Classical meaning, common misconceptions and implications for psychology. Psychology and Developing Societies, 25(1),1–20. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Picard, R. (1997). Affective computing cambridge. MA: MIT Press [Google Scholar],19. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Pitt, J.C. (2014). “guns don’t kill, people kill”; values in and/or around technologies. The moral status of technical artefacts (pp. 89–101). Springer. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Poel,I.v.d.,&Kroes,P. (2014). Can technology embody values? The moral status of technical artefacts (pp.103–124). Springer. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Poole, D.I., Goebel, R.G., Mackworth, A.K. (1998). Computational intelligence (Vol.1). Oxford University Press Oxford. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. Poole, D.L., & Mackworth, A.K. (2010). Artificial intelligence: foundations of computational agents. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. Russell,S. (2019). Human compatible: Artificial intelligence and the problem of control. Penguin. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. Russell, S.J. (2010). Artificial intelligence a modern approach. Pearson Education, Inc. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. Schmager, S., Pappas, I.O., Vassilakopoulou, P. (2025). Understanding human-centred ai: a review of its defining elements and a research agenda. Behaviour & Information Technology, 44(15), 3771–3810. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

45. Schwartz, S.H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol.25, pp.1–65). Elsevier. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

46. Sharpe, M., Bowen, M., Lambiotte, R. (2025). Quantifying digital habits. EPJ Data Science, 14(1),72. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

47. Shen, H., Knearem, T., Ghosh, R., Yang, Y.-J., Mitra, T., Huang, Y. (2024).Value compass: A framework of fundamental values for human-AI alignment. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.09586. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

48. Sullins,J.P. (2006). When is a robot a moral agent. Machine ethics, 6(2006), 23–30. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

49. Terra, J. (2023, May). Agents in ai: Exploring intelligent agents and its types, functions & composition. Simplilearn. Retrieved from https://www.simplilearn.com/what-is-intelligent-agent-inai-types-function-article [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

50. Verbeek,P.-P. (2011). Moralizing technology. University of Chicago press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

51. Wiener, N. (1960). Some moral and technical consequences of automation: As machines learn they may develop unforeseen strategies at rates that baffle their programmers. Science, 131(3410), 1355–1358. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

52. Winner,L. (2017). Do artifacts have politics? Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

53. Wolf, M.J., Miller, K.W., Grodzinsky, F.S. (2017). Why we should have seen that coming: commentsonmicrosoft’ stay “experiment,” and wider implications. The ORBIT Journal, 1(2),1–12. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

54. Zadeh,L.A. (1988). Fuzzylogic. Computer, 21(4),83–93. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

55. Zednik, C. (2021). Solving the black box problem: a normative framework for explainable artificial intelligence. Philosophy & Technology, 34(2), 265–288. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

56. Ziems, C., Yu, J., Wang, Y.-C., Halevy, A., Yang, D. (2022). The moral integrity corpus: A benchmark for ethical dialogue systems. Proceedings of the 60th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics (volume 1: Long papers) (pp.3755–3773). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Investigating the Performance of Colour Oxide on the PS/CNSO Oil Paint Production
• Real-Time Fabric Defect Detection Using a Lightweight Deformable YOLO Network
• Recent Trends in the Stock Market: An Analytical Study of Market Dynamics, Investor Behaviour, and Technological Influence
• Evaluation of Structural Dynamics and Equilibrium State, with Case Study of Large Cantilever Projection for a 10- Storey Reinforced Concrete Building in Lagos, Nigeria.
• Multi-Criteria Evaluation of AI-Based Adaptive Learning Platforms in Global Higher Education: A Fuzzy AHP Perspective