I agree alignment isn’t nearly as important as people thought, but for a different reason.
In general, one update I’ve made is that the vulnerable world hypothesis is mostly just wrong, except in narrow scenarios, and that’s largely due to me believing that defense against even the worst pathogens possible is actually super cheap, with Andrew Snyder-Beattie talking about it here.
More generally, I’ve updated towards a world model where easy to acquire stuff that is an existential risk either do not exist, or is easy to defend against, meaning the vulnerable world hypothesis isn’t correct.
The actual general reason alignment/corrigibility is less important is because contra some hypotheses, the value of a future controlled by AIs vs a future controlled by AI enhanced humans is not large, and realistically the difference is negligible, meaning moral trade (including acausal trade) and space governance becomes way more important than alignment/corrigibility.
I agree alignment isn’t nearly as important as people thought, but for a different reason.
In general, one update I’ve made is that the vulnerable world hypothesis is mostly just wrong, except in narrow scenarios, and that’s largely due to me believing that defense against even the worst pathogens possible is actually super cheap, with Andrew Snyder-Beattie talking about it here.
More generally, I’ve updated towards a world model where easy to acquire stuff that is an existential risk either do not exist, or is easy to defend against, meaning the vulnerable world hypothesis isn’t correct.
The actual general reason alignment/corrigibility is less important is because contra some hypotheses, the value of a future controlled by AIs vs a future controlled by AI enhanced humans is not large, and realistically the difference is negligible, meaning moral trade (including acausal trade) and space governance becomes way more important than alignment/corrigibility.