Evidence record 1129 · automatically gathered

Definitional alignment before capability alignment: a Design-Science framework for adjudicating claims about AGI

Claims that artificial general intelligence has already arrived and claims that it remains decades away are often defended from overlapping evidence. "AGI" lacks a single shared and stable referent and competing operationalizations can return different verdicts on the same system. This article treats that under-specification as a design and governance problem. Following Design Science Research Methodology, it develops DAF-AGI, a second-order conceptual artifact with two coupled components: five

Record details

Published: 10 June 2026
Source: arXiv
Category: Research
Topics: Regulation · Safety & alignment
Retrieved: 14 July 2026

source-onlyevidence status

These records share source-supplied organisations, an exact publisher byline, automatic topics or regions. The reason is shown on every link; related does not mean supporting, agreeing with or verifying this record.

How to cite this record

ethics.ai (10 June 2026), “Definitional alignment before capability alignment: a Design-Science framework for adjudicating claims about AGI,” evidence record 1129, https://ethics.ai/record/1129 (originally published by arXiv).

JSON

Use and limitations

This page is a stable index and citation surface for a source record. ethics.ai did not author the underlying report and has not independently verified every claim. Automatic topics may be imperfect. For consequential use, quote and cite the original publisher.