Truthfully, I understand. And if we have longer timelines or alignment will happen by default, then I’d agree. Unfortunately the chance of these assumptions not being true is high enough that we should probably forsake the deontological rule and make the most convincing arguments. Remember, we need to convince those that already have biases against certain types of reasoning common on LW, and there’s no better option. I agree with Kaj Sotala’s advice.
Dentological rules like the truth are too constraining to work in a short timelines environment or the possibility of non-alignment by default.
I disagree with this, to be clear. I don’t think we should sacrifice truth, and the criticism I was responding to wasn’t that Steinhardt’s posts would be untrue.
Yeah, this is basically the thing I’m terrified about. If someone has been convinced of AI risk with arguments which do not track truth, then I find it incredibly hard to believe that they’d ever be able to contribute useful alignment research, not to mention the general fact that if you recruit using techniques that select for people with bad epistemics you will end up with a community with shitty epistemics and wonder what went wrong.
Truthfully, I understand. And if we have longer timelines or alignment will happen by default, then I’d agree. Unfortunately the chance of these assumptions not being true is high enough that we should probably forsake the deontological rule and make the most convincing arguments. Remember, we need to convince those that already have biases against certain types of reasoning common on LW, and there’s no better option. I agree with Kaj Sotala’s advice.
Dentological rules like the truth are too constraining to work in a short timelines environment or the possibility of non-alignment by default.
I disagree with this, to be clear. I don’t think we should sacrifice truth, and the criticism I was responding to wasn’t that Steinhardt’s posts would be untrue.
Yeah, this is basically the thing I’m terrified about. If someone has been convinced of AI risk with arguments which do not track truth, then I find it incredibly hard to believe that they’d ever be able to contribute useful alignment research, not to mention the general fact that if you recruit using techniques that select for people with bad epistemics you will end up with a community with shitty epistemics and wonder what went wrong.
“we must sacrifice the very thing we intend to create, alignment, in order to create it”
A nice rebuttal against my unpopular previous comment.