I have an opposite impression. “Alignment” is usually interpreted as “do whatever a person who gave the order expected”, and what author calls “strong alignment” is aligned AGI ordered to implement CEV.
I think this is because there’s an active watering down of terms happening in some corners of AI capabilities research as a result of trying to only tackle subproblems in alignment and not being abundently clear that these are subproblems rather than the whole thing.
I have an opposite impression. “Alignment” is usually interpreted as “do whatever a person who gave the order expected”, and what author calls “strong alignment” is aligned AGI ordered to implement CEV.
I think this is because there’s an active watering down of terms happening in some corners of AI capabilities research as a result of trying to only tackle subproblems in alignment and not being abundently clear that these are subproblems rather than the whole thing.