Agent Safety Is Action Alignment

Large language models increasingly act as agents: they call tools, move money, delete records, and send messages on a user's behalf. To keep them safe, practitioners imported the chatbot-era recipe (train the model to refuse unsafe inputs) into the agentic setting, and treat the resulting capability loss as a manageable ``alignment tax.'' We argue this is a \emph{category error}. Refusal is a primitive for \emph{content safety}, where the harm is in the model's output and is therefore a learnabl

Related evidence

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 (27 June 2026), “Agent Safety Is Action Alignment,” evidence record 502, https://ethics.ai/record/502 (originally published by arXiv).

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.