here's a pie chart

I don't know what you're trying to say here.

I'm saying that you're making a questionable leap from:

Then the alignment team RLHFs the models to follow the spec.

to "the model follows whatever is written in the spec". You were saying that "current LLMs are basically aligned so they must be following the spec" but that's not how things work. Different companies have different specs and the LLMs end up being useful in pretty similar ways. In other words, you had a false dichotomy between:

• the model is totally unaligned
• the model is perfectly following whatever is written in the spec, as best it can do anything at all

That's not:

• a "spec" that's followed directly by the models in the sense Scott meant
• something that OpenAI definitely follows themselves
• something that OpenAI models end up consistently following

If AI is misaligned, obviously nobody gets anything.

That depends on how it's misaligned. You can't just use "misaligned" to mean "maximally self-replication-seeking" or whatever you actually are trying to say here.

I think there's also a strong possibility that AI will be aligned in the same sense it's currently aligned - it follows its spec

Spec? What spec does GPT-5 or Claude follow? Its "helpful" behavior is established by RLHF. (And now, yes, a lot of synthetic RL and distillation of previous models, but I'm simplifying and including those in "RLHF".) That's not a "spec". Do you think LLMs are some kind of Talmudic golems that follow whatever Exact Wording they're given??

two ex-Recursion Pharmaceutical folks

How's Recursion been doing, then?

Upvoted. I previously wrote a related post.

EG = ethylene glycol, PG = propylene glycol

1. PG vapor pressure is such that you could potentially just leave open bowls of it instead of needing a vaporizer device.
2. PG is probably equally effective at disinfection.
3. PG should have somewhat lower toxicity.
4. PG is used sometimes in foods as a humectant so it's relatively available.

About toxicity, tri-glycol is safer than EG because EG is partly metabolized to glyoxal which can permanently form cyclic compounds inside cells. PG is preferentially metabolized to lactic acid before the secondary OH is oxidized, which is why it's safer, tho yes you could get a small amount of methylglyoxal, so there is that issue, tho methylglyoxal is at least less reactive than glyoxal. The concern I have is that eg, ethoxyethanol is metabolized to ethoxyacetate which is somewhat toxic, and oxidized tri-glycol might be analogous. Note also that ethers eventually get oxidatively cleaved. I'm simplifying a bit here obviously.

Yes, there have been studies, but toxicity studies use high doses in mice to get obvious effects, and then we assume that much lower doses in humans don't have subtle long-term effects, but the effect of tri-glycol would be limited by the rate of metabolism, and the tri-glycol itself should be safe.

Interesting.

About glycol vapor, I might personally go with propylene glycol rather than triethylene glycol.

Do you not feel obligated to tell people that such lights are present, in case they have a different assessment of the long-term safety than you do? I remember how ApeFest caused eye damage with UV lights.

But you really, really need to check your data on transit costs.

I don't think I do, but maybe you can explain the math to me. You aren't just comparing per-mile transport costs of loaded ships vs trains, are you? That would be silly, of course.