I completely agree with what you’re saying at the end here. This project came about from trying to do that and I’m hoping to release something like that in the next couple of weeks. It’s a bit arbitrary but it is an interesting first guess I think?
So that would be the taxonomy of agents yet that felt quite arbitrary so the evolutionary approach kind of came from that on.
In your concept I see something like a theory-of-theories, or a meta-theory. Right now we have many possible theories of alignment, sometimes competing, and we don’t seem to have a good way to select between them. Well, this ecological approach is a candidate. It is advantageous because it classifies the strengths, commonalities, and weaknesses of all the alternative approaches. You have expanded on these advantages already in the piece above but that is my interpretation. I think yours is an interesting approach for structuring thinking. That is what we need in this pre-paradigmatic field.
I have been trying to create an alignment language as well. I have gone for a Popperian approach, trying to create falsifiability and iterating the theory until I achieve that. Slowly getting there! Mine is more a theory though, whereas I have read yours as more abstract, encompassing mine.
My work also seemed arbitrary at first. But yours seems to have a strong core structure on which to build, so I think the edges can be smoothed out and applications developed!
I would be interested in the Autumn workshop, if there is a mailing list or something? I have signed up for the Equilibria Network Luma calendar. Cheers!
Yes!
I completely agree with what you’re saying at the end here. This project came about from trying to do that and I’m hoping to release something like that in the next couple of weeks. It’s a bit arbitrary but it is an interesting first guess I think?
So that would be the taxonomy of agents yet that felt quite arbitrary so the evolutionary approach kind of came from that on.
Very cool.
In your concept I see something like a theory-of-theories, or a meta-theory. Right now we have many possible theories of alignment, sometimes competing, and we don’t seem to have a good way to select between them. Well, this ecological approach is a candidate. It is advantageous because it classifies the strengths, commonalities, and weaknesses of all the alternative approaches. You have expanded on these advantages already in the piece above but that is my interpretation. I think yours is an interesting approach for structuring thinking. That is what we need in this pre-paradigmatic field.
I have been trying to create an alignment language as well. I have gone for a Popperian approach, trying to create falsifiability and iterating the theory until I achieve that. Slowly getting there! Mine is more a theory though, whereas I have read yours as more abstract, encompassing mine.
My work also seemed arbitrary at first. But yours seems to have a strong core structure on which to build, so I think the edges can be smoothed out and applications developed!
I would be interested in the Autumn workshop, if there is a mailing list or something? I have signed up for the Equilibria Network Luma calendar. Cheers!