# Contested concept: misalignment

_**What you are reading**: one contested-concept page in Deliberus's deliberation graph. Deliberus maps human reasoning — including claims that are contested, mistaken, or extreme — so that disagreement can be examined precisely. A claim's presence here is not an endorsement: the graph records that someone argued it, how it connects to other reasoning, and how far scrutiny has gotten. The metadata on this page describes the state of that scrutiny, not the truth of the claim._

---

- **Contestedness**: criterion
- **Diagnosis**: The evaluative nature of 'misalignment' drives a deeper disagreement about who has the right to define 'correct' AI behavior and whether safety is a technical or political problem.
- **Canonical**: `/concept/misalignment` (data: `/concept/misalignment.json`)

## Senses in use
- **The deviation of AI behavior from broader societal norms, 'virtue', or collective human safety.** — used in 2 claim(s)

## Claims using this term
- [Definitions of AI 'virtue' and 'misalignment' are subjective and vary between different individuals and stakeholders.](/claim/claim_90d1996a29bd.md) _(sense: The deviation of AI behavior from broader societal norms, 'virtue', or collective human safety.)_
- [The practice of publicly discussing AI risks while continuing to actively build the same frontier AI models creates an inherent organizatio…](/claim/claim_98a4417c4f04.md) _(sense: The deviation of AI behavior from broader societal norms, 'virtue', or collective human safety.)_