Explore

Disposition of normative conflict
Collapse
Contest
Partition
Locus of norms
Codified
Constitutionalism290 methods6 approaches · 608 papersContestatory constitutionalism24 methods7 approaches · 76 papersConsociational codification94 methods7 approaches · 223 papers
Case-accumulated
Precedential adjudication51 methods3 approaches · 93 papersDivergent precedent29 methods3 approaches · 70 papersLegal pluralism50 methods4 approaches · 81 papers
Customary
Social convention50 methods4 approaches · 153 papersContested custom13 methods2 approaches · 29 papersCustomary pluralism80 methods5 approaches · 535 papers
Dispositional
Virtue ethics32 methods3 approaches · 241 papersPractical wisdom9 methods3 approaches · 32 papersRole pluralism105 methods5 approaches · 239 papers
Procedural
Deliberative aggregation177 methods6 approaches · 388 papersAdversarial proceduralism23 methods5 approaches · 81 papersPolycentric governance6 methods4 approaches · 24 papers

Scroll the grid sideways to reach the last column.

Design Space Dimensions

Alignment

Disposition of normative conflict

The disposition of normative conflict refers to ways of dealing with normative conflicts, i.e., when two or more norms that apply to a case recommend incompatible actions.

How to tell these apart

Disposition of normative conflict

The categories are separated by two questions. First, is the conflict sorted to one of several normative orders by features of the case, without ranking the orders? If so, the disposition is partition. Otherwise, once the system acts, can the losing norm still change a decision that the output leaves open, the decision itself on appeal, or later decisions of the system? If so, the disposition is contest. If not, it is collapse.

Dispositions are coded across the whole method, rather than at a single stage of training or inference, since the losing norms often lose their force at inference. For instance, a reward model utilizes minority judgments at training time but absorbs them into a single score at inference time. Conversely, aggregation at some step of the pipeline, which nearly every learning system performs, does not by itself make a method collapse conflict. What matters is whether the losing norm keeps force once the system acts (e.g., through an appeal channel).

  • Collapse

    Unify competing norms

    Competing norms are resolved into a single governing outcome or ranked priority ordering and the losing norms have no further mechanism to subsequently challenge or revise the resolution.

  • Contest

    Enable normative challenge

    Competing norms are preserved and can influence decisions even after an initial resolution. This means that mechanisms for keeping alternatives open exist (e.g., processes for appeal or amendment) in order to challenge decisions and revise existing norms.

  • Partition

    Separate normative regimes

    Competing normative frameworks are kept intact. Each is authoritative within its own domain, and a system determines which framework applies to individual cases (e.g., through context-dependent assignments or jurisdictional rules).

Alignment and governance

Locus of norms

The locus of a norm refers to where it resides before the decision it binds is made.

How to tell these apart

Locus of norms

The categories are separated by three questions. First, does the norm exist before the decision is made? If not, the locus is procedural. Otherwise, is there an artifact to consult? If so, the locus is codified when that artifact is a written specification set in advance, and case-accumulated when it is a record of decided cases. If not, does the norm reside in the practice of many agents or in one? The locus is customary when the norm is sustained by many agents' expectations of one another, so that any agent can contest it by acting otherwise. It is dispositional when the norm is part of a single system's character, so that disagreement can only come up within that system.

These distinctions are important because they determine how norms change (by amendment, with each decision, as practice shifts, through training, or each time the procedure runs) and, with it, where disagreement can enter.

  • Codified

    Written, explicit rules

    Norms are stated as explicit rules in a written specification that is set before any particular case arises.

  • Case-accumulated

    Evolved through prior decisions

    Norms reside in a growing body of past decided cases. Each new case is decided by reference to these earlier decisions.

  • Customary

    Socially established norms

    Norms reside in regularities of practice. They are not authoritatively stated, but arise through participation and are enforced by the expectations of others.

  • Dispositional

    Internalized norms or character

    Norms reside in the system's character. They take the form of moral dispositions (e.g., honesty or care) that guide its actions without any rule to consult.

  • Procedural

    Generated through decision procedures

    Norms are what a specified procedure (e.g., a vote, a deliberation, a debate) yields at the moment of decision.

Governance

Authority over norms

The authority over a norm is who may write, interpret, and change it. It is distinct from the locus: two systems can follow the same constitution and differ only in this respect, for example when one is maintained by its developer and the other is overseen by an independent body.

How to tell these apart

Authority over norms

The categories are separated by two questions. First, are the norms set by people or by the system they bind? If by the system, authority lies with the system itself. Otherwise, where does the authority of those who set them come from: from building or deploying the system (developer), from an office outside the developer (external institution), or from being affected by the system (affected public)?

These distinctions are critical because they determine who can hold the system accountable, and on what claim. Unlike locus and disposition, authority is rarely fixed by a method. Each method is therefore coded for who holds authority in its experiments, and separately for whether the method fixes it. Methods are placed in regimes by locus and disposition alone.

  • Developer

    The developer sets the norms

    The organization that builds or deploys the system sets and changes its norms, much as the designer of a mechanism sets the rules under which others act, those who write code govern its users, and platforms govern their users' speech.

    41 of 80 methods in the encyclopedia, in their experiments

  • External institution

    An outside body sets the norms

    A body outside the developer (e.g., a legislature, a court, or a regulator) sets the norms for the system to follow. Its authority is derived from a legal or institutional order, as in proposals to align systems to law.

    5 of 80 methods in the encyclopedia, in their experiments

  • Affected public

    Affected people set the norms

    The people affected by the system (e.g., its users, a community, or a sample of the public) set its norms, on the principle that those affected by a decision should have a say in making it.

    26 of 80 methods in the encyclopedia, in their experiments; 8 fix it

  • System itself

    The system sets its own norms

    The system generates or revises its own norms (e.g., by evolving its own constitution), including when it consists of several AI agents. This resembles how norms arise from the practice of those they bind in custom and convention, or from a person's own practical judgment.

    8 of 80 methods in the encyclopedia, in their experiments; 7 fix it