Therefore, it might be a good idea for all (or at least a large group of) alignment researchers to coordinate around pursuing the same specific alignment plan based on the result of a quantum RNG, or something like that.
From this I infer that you think the set of alignment strategies we would use as alternatives to pick by quantum dice is enough to cover much more space than a single one which seems the best by general consensus.
My intuition tells me that if Clippy thought we had a 10−25 chance, this trick does not really move the needle.
Epistemic status: Updating on this comment and taking into account uncertainty about my own values, my credence in this post is around 50%.
Is this conditional on the “Assumptions” section, or marginal?
From this I infer that you think the set of alignment strategies we would use as alternatives to pick by quantum dice is enough to cover much more space than a single one which seems the best by general consensus.
My intuition tells me that if Clippy thought we had a 10−25 chance, this trick does not really move the needle.
Is this conditional on the “Assumptions” section, or marginal?