Tl;dr: The frontier AI companies’ implicit alignment plans center on rushing towards RSI with something like current models. This plan is (at best) contentious, and many believe it will have catastrophic consequences. Nonetheless, it is the track we are on. It is therefore important to collect evidence which helps us anticipate how this will go.
—
Note: This post is based on conversations inside the Arcadia Impact alignment team, thinking about what constitutes “good” work in third-party alignment research.
What are the labs’ current alignment strategies?
In practice, the labs’ playbook for producing aligned models looks like the following:
1. Shape the model’s alignment generalization.[1] Both Anthropic and OpenAI make heavy use of alignment training techniques that work by shaping the Assistant persona and its inductive biases. Ideally, planting various ‘safe’ traits into the model will generalize to all of its other actions.
2. Apply extensive RL pressure. Somewhat independently of the above, the labs do extraordinary amounts of RL on the model. This increases its capabilities, but also encourages reward-seeking behaviors and metagaming, and may ultimately lead to scheming and other forms of instrumental convergence.
1. They also might apply various techniques here such as inoculation prompting, confessions, and the like.
3. Race towards prosaic RSI.[2] The labs intend to use this model for automated research to improve both capabilities and alignment for subsequent models. People in labs say that this is necessary to make sufficiently fast progress on alignment, conditioned on the race conditions.
4. Evaluate and fix alignment via trial-and-error. The labs try to catch alignment failures via dedicated evals, but many alignment issues are found through intended and unintended deployments.
This plan seems terrible
The above strategy appears deeply flawed.
To start, capabilities milestones continue to arrive faster than anticipated, and our alignmen