Thanks for this manuscript, already a key reading for newcomers.
[principled methods] constitutes an important difference from other technologies such as planes and bridges, whose safety we can ensure because we understand the principles that govern them.
This innocent looking sentence is actually a very strong statement. Could we ensure the safety of TWA Flight 800 and Tacoma bridge? Or we couldn’t but we could have, if only we did understand better the principles that govern electric sparks and mechanical resonance? Imho we should instead thank learning from trying, and that’s a damn as alignement likely includes errors we can’t learn from. On the other hand, you have a point that better interpretability should help, so I suggest to replace « whose safety we can ensure… » by a lighter statement, for example « whose safety is made easier… ».
Thanks for this manuscript, already a key reading for newcomers.
This innocent looking sentence is actually a very strong statement. Could we ensure the safety of TWA Flight 800 and Tacoma bridge? Or we couldn’t but we could have, if only we did understand better the principles that govern electric sparks and mechanical resonance? Imho we should instead thank learning from trying, and that’s a damn as alignement likely includes errors we can’t learn from. On the other hand, you have a point that better interpretability should help, so I suggest to replace « whose safety we can ensure… » by a lighter statement, for example « whose safety is made easier… ».