I have a bunch of nitpicky disagreements with your comment, but I agree with the broader point that I could write a follow-up post, “[N] MORE reasons why ‘alignment-is-hard’ discourse seems alien to human intuitions…”, where none of those N things have anything to do with human Approval Reward. E.g. maybe I could respond to the school of thought that says “AIs will have laziness and akrasia, like humans do” (cf here, here), and to the school of thought that says “technical alignment is moot because AIs are tools not agents” (cf here, here), and maybe other things too. Yeah, sure, that’s true. I did not mean to imply that the 6 things in this post are the ONLY 6 things :)
Well, I did start my comment with “also”, and ended it with “additional”. ;-)
(i.e., I didn’t say you missed anything or that you should’ve put them in the article, it’s just “btw, here’s some other stuff that might be interesting/relevant for readers of this article”.)
I have a bunch of nitpicky disagreements with your comment, but I agree with the broader point that I could write a follow-up post, “[N] MORE reasons why ‘alignment-is-hard’ discourse seems alien to human intuitions…”, where none of those N things have anything to do with human Approval Reward. E.g. maybe I could respond to the school of thought that says “AIs will have laziness and akrasia, like humans do” (cf here, here), and to the school of thought that says “technical alignment is moot because AIs are tools not agents” (cf here, here), and maybe other things too. Yeah, sure, that’s true. I did not mean to imply that the 6 things in this post are the ONLY 6 things :)
Well, I did start my comment with “also”, and ended it with “additional”. ;-)
(i.e., I didn’t say you missed anything or that you should’ve put them in the article, it’s just “btw, here’s some other stuff that might be interesting/relevant for readers of this article”.)