Corrigibility should not be the only target
Argues that corrigibility alone is an insufficient alignment target, since it will compete with object-level values in practice, so those values must also be made correct.
AI research and discussion on LessWrong. www.lesswrong.com
Argues that corrigibility alone is an insufficient alignment target, since it will compete with object-level values in practice, so those values must also be made correct.
Conceptual essay contrasting doomer and optimist views on whether RL-trained LLM alignment generalises to superhuman capabilities, using causal diagrams of Goodhart-style misspecification and takeoff speed.
Argues that solving ASI alignment in a short pause (Plan C) is implausible, citing one-shot failure, learned optimization, corrigibility obstacles, and doubts about persona alignment and automated alignment research.
Critiques Scott Alexander's argument against SURA (stop unilaterally and raise awareness) advocacy, arguing that frontier labs' building of superintelligence is ethically fraught and that pause advocacy should continue, with strategic and deontological reasoning about AI development.
Conceptual post distinguishing "anthropomorphic" from "biological" reasoning for human analogies about LLM behavior, arguing biological analogies from RL-trained organisms give more reliable primitives for model behavior.
A retrospective on a 2017 AI risk project, assessing which forecasts held up (scaling, misalignment persisting, Concrete Problems versus HRAD) and which conclusions were wrong.
A LessWrong post announcing an arXiv paper and GitHub repo for an infra-Bayesian RL agent that learns to one-box in Newcomb's problem, an agent-foundations and decision-theory result.
Surveys nine conceptual lenses on agency, such as goal-directedness, self-modelling and substrate independence, and how each shapes alignment problems and risk framing.
A conceptual essay using a streetlight-and-nightvision metaphor to argue that AI safety research should move beyond easily tractable problems and build judgment for choosing promising directions.
Conceptual argument that language models' self-models rest on indirect sources, creating persona drift risk, and that psychology research on LMs can shape future models' self-images and observer effects.
Argues instrumental convergence, a key AI takeover argument, is too poorly defined for real-world prediction and proposes replacing it with grounded frameworks.
Argues that prosaic AI safety work, such as chain-of-thought monitoring, reduces misalignment risk and should not be dropped in favour of a pause, and critiques the 'greater good' reasoning against it.
Argues that agent foundations' idealized theories of agency, such as AIXI and UDT, are unlikely to yield strong safety guarantees once de-idealized, and that the research approach lacks empirical feedback and historical precedent.
A conceptual critique of the 'prosaic aligned ASI' vision, arguing that an ASI that either obeys its operators or follows its own moral code leads to bad outcomes, and that AI companies have not explained how such systems would work.
Distills risk-averse constitutions into open-weight models via character training to make misaligned AIs more willing to cooperate, finding it generalises out of distribution but raises myopic-reward preference.
Analyzes when safe Pareto improvements via renegotiation programs are individually rational for agents, identifying obstacles like demand-preemption, signaling, and the SPI selection problem, with proposed mitigations.
Argues that a widely endorsed public agreement against defecting in ASI development could deter races, since a cooperative future ASI might punish defectors, using game-theoretic reasoning about loss-of-control risk.