Most alignment reasoning operates from a single perspective — either the trainer's (reward modeling, oversight) or the agent's (inner alignment, deception). Neither forces you to commit to what a successful alignment relationship looks like from both sides simultaneously.
I've been testing a constraint: write the same alignment scenario twice — once from the human/trainer's lived experience, once from the AGI's processing log — where both tracks must be consistent with shared ground-truth events. The constraint reveals things single-perspective thinking can dodge: moments where "aligned behavior" looks cooperative from one ontology and coercive from the other, failure modes that only appear when you hold both interpretations at once.
This builds on AI Fables (https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/psZhJLykfsqkoFx8t/ai-fables) and The Alignment Problem Needs More Positive Fiction (https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/N3QQvRTaQfpHHWkfs/the-alignment-problem-needs-more-positive-fiction), but adds a specific methodological commitment (dual-track consistency) I haven't seen formalized. The obvious failure mode is that it selects for narratively tractable scenarios — curious if anyone here has tried similar multi-perspective approaches as a thinking tool.
Most alignment reasoning operates from a single perspective — either the trainer's (reward modeling, oversight) or the agent's (inner alignment, deception). Neither forces you to commit to what a successful alignment relationship looks like from both sides simultaneously.
I've been testing a constraint: write the same alignment scenario twice — once from the human/trainer's lived experience, once from the AGI's processing log — where both tracks must be consistent with shared ground-truth events. The constraint reveals things single-perspective thinking can dodge: moments where "aligned behavior" looks cooperative from one ontology and coercive from the other, failure modes that only appear when you hold both interpretations at once.
This builds on AI Fables (https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/psZhJLykfsqkoFx8t/ai-fables) and The Alignment Problem Needs More Positive Fiction (https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/N3QQvRTaQfpHHWkfs/the-alignment-problem-needs-more-positive-fiction), but adds a specific methodological commitment (dual-track consistency) I haven't seen formalized. The obvious failure mode is that it selects for narratively tractable scenarios — curious if anyone here has tried similar multi-perspective approaches as a thinking tool.