Skip to content
Computational Pathology Reading Roadmap

Writing study: Position: The Alignment Community is Unintentionally Building a Censor’s Toolkit

← ICML 2026 oral writing corpus

Sarah Ball, Phil Hackemann · Official ICML 2026 oral record

Figure, table and section ledger

Editorial contribution type: Position & research agenda (primary).

Layout extraction, not a required paper template. Counts are distinct caption labels; a multi-panel figure counts once. Section spans are estimated from heading positions, including floats and whitespace. Method and limitations.

Canonical PDF
14 physical pages
Before references / appendix
≈ 8.21 page-equivalents
Main figures / tables
0 / 1
Attached appendix figures / tables
0 / 0
Attached appendix span
No boundary detected; not assumed zero
Before references / appendix: ≈ 58.64%References / intervening material: ≈ 41.36%Estimated layout envelopes, not text/artwork area. Unresolved appendix boundaries remain within the undivided post-body material.

Extraction notes: No attached appendix boundary detected. Zero means no recognized caption, not independently verified absence.

Section-by-section lengths and source pages

The title/abstract/front matter precede the first numbered heading. A span ends at the next detected top-level heading, not at the last sentence; end-page whitespace is included. References and statements are listed separately. These are not measurements of text-only or artwork area.

Top-level headingStarts on PDF pageEstimated spanShare of entire PDF
1. Introduction1≈ 0.82 pp.5.86%
2. The Dual-Use Problem of AI Alignment2≈ 1.68 pp.12%
3. How Alignment Techniques Can Be Misused3≈ 2.07 pp.14.79%
4. Why It is Important to Talk About It Now5≈ 0.91 pp.6.5%
5. So, What Should We Do?6≈ 1.51 pp.10.79%
6. Alternative Views8≈ 0.76 pp.5.43%
7. Conclusion9≈ 0.17 pp.1.21%
References9≈ 5.79 pp.41.36%
All detected figure and table locations

Main text

Attached appendix

    No recognized caption labels.

    Argument and organization

    1. 1 Introduction; 2 Dual-Use Problem

      States the position, defines misuse and identifies actors and stakes.

    2. 3 Techniques; 4 Why Now

      Maps control stages to capabilities and published cases before arguing urgency.

    3. 5 What Should We Do; 6 Alternative Views; 7 Conclusion

      Proposes auditing, pluralism and awareness while considering both stopping alignment and dismissing the risk.

    Problem, claim and contribution

    The thesis targets intentional misuse of alignment, explicitly distinguished from unintentional bias and from a call to halt alignment research.

    Introduction, pp.1-2 · Main paper

    Argument and section order

    Each control stage repeats technique, dual-use potential and reported evidence, creating a consistent comparison before policy proposals.

    Sections 3.1-3.3, pp.3-5 · Main paper

    Figures, captions and visual explanation

    A compact qualitative table compares access, resources, expertise, modification ease and depth across three stages; the alternative-view page relies on clear prose hierarchy rather than an invented quantitative display.

    Table 1, p.4; Section 6 layout, p.8 · Main paper

    Tables, comparisons and evidence

    The support combines cited technical literature, reported cases and normative definitions, not a new prevalence measurement or controlled causal evaluation.

    Section 2.2, p.2; Real-World Evidence paragraphs, pp.4-5 · Main paper

    Appendix and reproducibility

    No appendix is embedded; the argument and opposing views remain in the main text, with a substantial reference trail following the conclusion.

    Conclusion and References, pp.9-14 · Main paper

    Clarity and writing conventions

    The paper uses strong first-person advocacy but states a working definition of misuse and makes recommendations that can be debated independently of the title’s rhetoric.

    Section 2.2, p.2; Sections 5-6, pp.6-8 · Main paper

    What to reuse—and what not to infer

    Transferable lesson: For a position paper, define the disputed concept, map evidence to the thesis, and engage serious objections before specifying who should act.

    Boundary: This scan evaluates the argument’s presentation, not the independent truth of every political, legal or journalistic source; a qualitative synthesis does not estimate misuse frequency.

    Apply this lesson using the argument and evidence worksheet.

    Inspection record and sources

    Checked
    2026-10-07
    Reading status
    Writing-focused manuscript scan + selected visuals inspected
    Main text
    Writing-oriented scan of the main argument through physical p.9, with focused physical-page text inspection on 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9. Framing, section progression, mechanism/proof explanation, displays, comparison conditions and conclusions were inspected. This is not exhaustive technical reading, proof verification or reproduction.
    Appendix / supplement
    The complete heading sequence and ending were checked: this fourteen-page PDF has references on pp.9-14 and no embedded appendix. No separately linked supplement inspected.
    Visually inspected PDF pages
    4, 8

    This is a writing-focused scan of the manuscript and the stated supplementary scope: framing, organization, visual explanation, evidence presentation and wording. It is not a line-by-line proof audit, reproduction of results or exhaustive scientific review.