I think it might be time to consider the idea that the frame and conclusions you attribute to me blind you from taking the essay for what it is.
You might notice, for instance, that I haven’t mentioned alignment once. I am not making an argument on its possibility, and I have not explored the implication of my essay for alignment.
If by now adopting a scout mindset for the original text has become too emotionally fraugh, perhaps you could ask someone you trust to explain it. Jessica, or Raemon, or Adele Lopez, or Kromem are some of the people in this thread with whom I had productive, if not always concordant, discussions.
How much a goal can be locked in, and affect the ultimate effects of a very strong mind, is indeed centrally related to alignment. Call it what you will.
Of course. The concept of “goal” itself is related to alignment.
The issue with positing that my post had some specific points to make about the process of design and ensuring lock in of a goal for an AI, however, is that it leads to consider alignment consequences of my thesis and to imagine that I am specifically trying to discuss those. This makes it hard, given both your priors on my motives in a general sense, and the vastness of the topic in question, to follow the argument I have actually written down.
I think it might be time to consider the idea that the frame and conclusions you attribute to me blind you from taking the essay for what it is.
You might notice, for instance, that I haven’t mentioned alignment once. I am not making an argument on its possibility, and I have not explored the implication of my essay for alignment.
If by now adopting a scout mindset for the original text has become too emotionally fraugh, perhaps you could ask someone you trust to explain it. Jessica, or Raemon, or Adele Lopez, or Kromem are some of the people in this thread with whom I had productive, if not always concordant, discussions.
How much a goal can be locked in, and affect the ultimate effects of a very strong mind, is indeed centrally related to alignment. Call it what you will.
Of course. The concept of “goal” itself is related to alignment.
The issue with positing that my post had some specific points to make about the process of design and ensuring lock in of a goal for an AI, however, is that it leads to consider alignment consequences of my thesis and to imagine that I am specifically trying to discuss those. This makes it hard, given both your priors on my motives in a general sense, and the vastness of the topic in question, to follow the argument I have actually written down.