It’s not obvious to me what details Anthropic could provide to help us understand what’s going on with the blackmail and “high-agency behavior” stuff (as opposed to capability evals, where there’s lots of things Anthropic could clarify)
(Note: Anthropic presumably did not expect that this stuff would get so much attention)
(Note: Anthropic spends 30 pages of the system card on alignment)
This post is about capabilities since that’s what (companies say) is load-bearing; Anthropic says the alignment evals stuff isn’t load-bearing
Thank you, I understand your point now. In the post, you were referring specifically to a particular part of alignment, namely capability evaluations, while my example relates to more loosely scoped problems. Since I am still new to this terminology, the distinction was not immediately clear to me.
Replying briefly since I was tagged:
It’s not obvious to me what details Anthropic could provide to help us understand what’s going on with the blackmail and “high-agency behavior” stuff (as opposed to capability evals, where there’s lots of things Anthropic could clarify)
(Note: Anthropic presumably did not expect that this stuff would get so much attention)
(Note: Anthropic spends 30 pages of the system card on alignment)
This post is about capabilities since that’s what (companies say) is load-bearing; Anthropic says the alignment evals stuff isn’t load-bearing
Thank you, I understand your point now. In the post, you were referring specifically to a particular part of alignment, namely capability evaluations, while my example relates to more loosely scoped problems. Since I am still new to this terminology, the distinction was not immediately clear to me.
Alignment and capabilities are separate.
Welcome to the forum! No worries.