Discussion and research on AI alignment. alignmentforum.org
Argues that controllable superintelligence research would inevitably yield unsafe ASI along the same technical path, so safe ASI projects require a global ban on ASI development with enforcement first.
An opinionated essay estimating how hard AI alignment is by comparing person-years of effort against steam engine safety, Apollo, and P vs NP, and arguing for accelerating the field's growth.
Argues AI control can modestly reduce risk from misaligned superhuman AI but is likely to become hopeless within a few years of AI R&D automation, estimating how much time control can buy.
Prioritizes threats for AI control, arguing that undetected rogue internal deployments with escalated permissions are worse than self-exfiltration and should be the top priority to prevent or catch.
Argues that AI control may raise existential risk by shifting outcomes toward ineffective warning shots and takeover, since controlled incidents are unlikely to prompt serious action on alignment.
Apollo Research staff argue AI labs should publish detailed short-timeline (2027) plans, proposing minimal requirements: secure model weights and monitoring of scheming AIs, with faithful chain-of-thought and monitoring as core defenses.