This seems like the same level of as other proposed alignment strategies like “maternal instincts” from Geoffrey Hinton or the “truth-seeking AI” from Elon Musk.
I disagree, on several counts. For one thing, constitutional AI is a technical spec, not just a vague idea for how things could go better? For another, it’s a technical spec that recruits an AI’s own intelligence for shaping the AI’s behavior, which seems like the kind of thing that you need in a scalable alignment scheme.
I’m not saying it’s remotely sufficient for aligning superintelligences. It seems like it isn’t for a bunch of reasons.
But if you think people are wrong to be engaging with it, do you want to give some specific arguments for what’s wrong with it rather than just stating that it’s “obviously naive”?
I disagree, on several counts. For one thing, constitutional AI is a technical spec, not just a vague idea for how things could go better? For another, it’s a technical spec that recruits an AI’s own intelligence for shaping the AI’s behavior, which seems like the kind of thing that you need in a scalable alignment scheme.
I’m not saying it’s remotely sufficient for aligning superintelligences. It seems like it isn’t for a bunch of reasons.
But if you think people are wrong to be engaging with it, do you want to give some specific arguments for what’s wrong with it rather than just stating that it’s “obviously naive”?