Humans are pretty clearly very especially generally intelligent, and so will display far more of the problems with aligning a general intelligence than displayed in animal interactions.
Like, the argument you make for females being interested in “people over things” could also explain the reverse—males are incentivized to deceive females, which you can do better the better you model people, right?
Males are hypothetically less incentivized to get alignment. So the knowledge about alignment would hypothetically be more concentrated in females. It would still be relevant to understand how males (or anyone) deceives others, specifically for understanding deceptive alignment.
Like, even a person who I think might be lying to me can be modeled as fundamentally human
Yes, I agree it’s much easier of a problem, e.g. for the reasons you list. It’s a very common tactic when dealing with an impossible seeming problem, to focus on easier but still very nontrivial versions of the problem.
Humans are pretty clearly very especially generally intelligent, and so will display far more of the problems with aligning a general intelligence than displayed in animal interactions.
Males are hypothetically less incentivized to get alignment. So the knowledge about alignment would hypothetically be more concentrated in females. It would still be relevant to understand how males (or anyone) deceives others, specifically for understanding deceptive alignment.
Yes, I agree it’s much easier of a problem, e.g. for the reasons you list. It’s a very common tactic when dealing with an impossible seeming problem, to focus on easier but still very nontrivial versions of the problem.