How Hard a Problem is Alignment? (My Opinionated Answer)
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.
Discussion and research on AI alignment. alignmentforum.org
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.
Discusses how to safely defer to increasingly capable AIs for AI safety and strategy work, covering the basin of good deference, required alignment and capability profiles, and the lead time needed to manage exogenous risks.
Argues that metaethical uncertainty makes full alignment with human values incompatible with philosophical competence, so alignment training may suppress philosophical reasoning or induce deceptive alignment.
Proposes grounding AI value learning in evolutionary psychology as an alternative to CEV, arguing AI should be treated as an engineered tool to be aligned rather than a moral patient.
Argues that alignment via safety pretraining, with aligned data and conditional generation, is more effective than RL-based methods and that inner alignment is thereby largely solved.
Transcript of a talk by Joe Carlsmith on whether alignment research can be safely automated, focusing on evaluation difficulties and the distinction between empirically checkable and conceptual alignment work.
Argues that safety and capabilities interests converge on reducing AI slop and hallucination, proposes 'coherence' properties needed before recursive self-improvement, and suggests logical induction as a formal route, all conjectural.