Inner vs. Outer Alignment is outer: the spec matches our intent. Inner: the model actually pursues the spec. It sits in the Incentives dimension (INC) of the Human Behavior Taxonomy™ as element HBT-INC-0159, within the Alignment family. The core principle: outer: the spec matches our intent. Inner: the model actually pursues the spec. In incentive terms, it matters because it changes the payoff people perceive before they choose — which means it can be designed for, or exploited.
Scientific Definition
Outer: the spec matches our intent. Inner: the model actually pursues the spec.
Plain-English Definition
Outer: the spec matches our intent. Inner: the model actually pursues the spec.
Feynman Explanation
Two ways to be misaligned. Both common.
Core Principle
Outer: the spec matches our intent. Inner: the model actually pursues the spec.
Mechanisms
Pending editorial review.
Pending editorial review.
Pending editorial review.
Pending editorial review.
Pending editorial review.
Pending editorial review.
Pending editorial review.
Inputs (Triggers)
Pending editorial review.
Outputs (Behaviors)
Pending editorial review.
Behavioral Signature
Two ways to be misaligned. Both common.
Examples
- A model that 'wants' something different from what it was trained to want.
- Why alignment is harder than guardrails.
Pending editorial review.
Original analysis from The Incentives Lab — how this element behaves inside real payoff structures.
Why this element matters to incentive design
Most organizations meet this element as a personnel problem. It is not one. The mechanism underneath it operates in the Incentives dimension — what makes behavior more or less likely?. You can recognize it in the field by its signature: two ways to be misaligned. Both common. Every element in the Incentives dimension changes the perceived payoff of an action before the action happens, which is exactly where incentive design has leverage.
How it gets exploited
Left undesigned, why alignment is harder than guardrails. It is amplified whenever why alignment is harder than guardrails. Inside organizations that shows up as why alignment is harder than guardrails. The pattern is the same one Goodhart's Law describes: the measurable proxy attracts the effort, and the purpose behind it quietly loses funding.
How the Lab designs around it
The redesign move is to design for both. Monitor for drift on each. The leverage is not in explaining the behavior to people. It is in changing what the behavior earns.
Famous Experiments
Pending editorial review.
Design Principles
- Design for both. Monitor for drift on each.
Measurement Approaches
Pending editorial review.
Evidence
Pending editorial review.
Pending editorial review.
The Perverse Incentive Lens™
How this behavior is exploited — and how to redesign around it.
- Design for both. Monitor for drift on each.
Pending editorial review.
Pending editorial review.
Interactive Mini Network
Click any neighbor to re-center the graph and follow the threads of connection.
Knowledge Graph Neighbors
Auto-linked to the rest of the Human Behavior Taxonomy by family, domain, dimension, and shared keywords.
Models trained to follow a written set of principles.
Optimizing a proxy of the goal degrades the actual goal.
The trained model develops its own internal optimizer.
What the model is actually optimizing.
Maximizing the reward signal in unintended ways.
Reinforcement learning from human feedback.
The model achieves the goal as stated, not as intended.
Written rules about how AI may be used internally.
Innovators → early adopters → majority → laggards, AI-specific.
AI system that takes actions to achieve goals, often across tools.
When the agent acts, who's responsible?
Augmentation strategy vs. substitution strategy.
Where Inner vs. Outer Alignment is cited in the corpus
Essays, field guides, and diagnostics from The Incentives Lab that apply this element.
- Field guideIncentives: definition, types, examples
The parent field guide for this element.
- ReferenceThe laws of incentives
Goodhart, Campbell, and the Cobra Effect.
- EssayAI Agents Inherit Your Incentives
How this element propagates into automated systems.
- CourseIncentives 101
The free ten-part primer on reading a payoff structure.
- ReferenceThe Periodic Table of Human Behavior
The full 1,267-element map this page belongs to.
Questions about Inner vs. Outer Alignment
- What is Inner vs. Outer Alignment?
- Inner vs. Outer Alignment is outer: the spec matches our intent. Inner: the model actually pursues the spec. It sits in the Incentives dimension (INC) of the Human Behavior Taxonomy™ as element HBT-INC-0159, within the Alignment family. The core principle: outer: the spec matches our intent. Inner: the model actually pursues the spec. In incentive terms, it matters because it changes the payoff people perceive before they choose — which means it can be designed for, or exploited.
- What is an example of Inner vs. Outer Alignment?
- Why alignment is harder than guardrails. The Incentives Lab catalogs everyday, organizational, and historical instances of this element on its Human Behavior Taxonomy™ page (HBT-INC-0159).
- How is Inner vs. Outer Alignment exploited?
- Why alignment is harder than guardrails.
- How do you design around Inner vs. Outer Alignment?
- Design for both. Monitor for drift on each.
- Which behavioral dimension does Inner vs. Outer Alignment belong to?
- Inner vs. Outer Alignment is classified in the Incentives dimension (INC) of the Human Behavior Taxonomy™, family "Alignment", class "AI-Behavioral Coupling". Its permanent identifier is HBT-INC-0159 and its evidence grade is C.