Wiki Contributions


Waluigi effect also seems bad for s-risk. "Optimize for pleasure, ..." -> "Optimize for suffering, ...".

Iff LLM simulacra resemble humans but are misaligned, that doesn't bode well for S-risk chances. 

An optimistic way to frame inner alignment is that gradient descent already hits a very narrow target in goal-space, and we just need one last push.

A pessimistic way to frame inner misalignment is that gradient descent already hits a very narrow target in goal-space, and therefore S-risk could be large.

We should implement Paul Christiano's debate game with alignment researchers instead of ML systems

This community has developed a bunch of good tools for helping resolve disagreements, such as double cruxing. It's a waste that they haven't been systematically deployed for the MIRI conversations. Those conversations could have ended up being more productive and we could've walked away with a succint and precise understanding about where the disagreements are and why.

Another thing one might wonder about is if performing iterated amplification with constant input from an aligned human (as "H" in the original iterated amplification paper) would result in a powerful aligned thing if that thing remains corrigible during the training process.

The comment about tool-AI vs agent-AI is just ignorant (or incredibly dismissive) of mesa-optimizers and the fact that being asked to predict what an agent would do immediately instantiates such an agent inside the tool-AI. It's obvious that a tool-AI is safer than an explicitely agentic one, but not for arbitrary levels of intelligence.

This seems way too confident to me given the level of generality of your statement. And to be clear, my view is that this could easily happen in LLMs based on transformers, but what other architectures? If you just talk about how a generic "tool-AI" would or would not behave, it seems to me that you are operating on a level of abstraction far too high to be able to make such specific statements with confidence.

If you try to write a reward function, or a loss function, that caputres human values, that seems hopeless. 

But if you have some interpretability techniques that let you find human values in some simulacrum of a large language model, maybe that's less hopeless.

The difference between constructing something and recognizing it, or between proving and checking, or between producing and criticizing, and so on...

Why this shouldn't work? What's the epistemic failure mode being pointed at here?

While you can "cry wolf" in maybe useful ways, you can also state your detailed understanding of each specific situation as it arises and how it specifically plays into the broader AI risk context.

Load More