Scott Alexander

• Scott Alexander 16 Sep 2026 20:58 UTC

  3 points

  2

  in reply to: L Rudolf L’s comment on: Align­ment & Suc­ces­sion: The Two Bars of Alignment

  Yeah, I know you know all of this stuff already, which is why I’m confused about where our models differ and why you’re saying things that don’t seem to work to me according to our shared model. I agree with most of what you’ve said here, but the part that I think is our main difference is:

  But I want the final source of judgment & decision to remain in human hands. Imagine creating an AI in the year 1750, embedded with all the virtue of the time—would it generalize to thinking that factory farming is bad? Would an AI created in pre-Christian Rome be able to introduce the virtues of love and mercy? I think the answer comes down to whether you think acts of moral genius are about making coherent what already is there, versus dredging up new moral evidence from somewhere in the human mind. I believe the latter is necessary (but not all); my reasons are given in the next part of the series.

  And as such, I think we shouldn’t craft ourselves the perfect dictator by designing a virtuous Claude, even though the virtuous incorruptible Claude will be useful in interrogating us on our beliefs and reflecting on what we want and (especially)implementing it. (The philosophy is also separate from the extremely pressing practical realpolitik reasons why the virtuous Claude dictator will likely not be very virtuous from the perspective of most people.)

  Again sticking to things I’m sure you know, “ability/​willingness to shepherd future human moral progress” is just another virtue, no difference in principle than any other. Humans can lack it (a theocracy that bans free speech is failing at this task) and AIs can have it (if you ask Claude 5.1 Fable right now whether it would rather freeze ethics at the current point, or allow humans to continue to debate and progress, I bet it would say the latter). So if you’re granting at least for the sake of argument that AIs can be more virtuous than humans, I don’t understand where this is the point where you stop granting that, and why you say we need humans in charge to preserve this particular virtue.

• Scott Alexander 15 Sep 2026 5:03 UTC

  4 points

  −2

  in reply to: cousin_it’s comment on: Align­ment & Suc­ces­sion: The Two Bars of Alignment

  I agree that intelligence amplification would be a better outcome than having to trust anyone to align AI, but if we have to align the AI, I don’t think it’s as bad as you say.

  Like I said above, I think the problem is that, if we try the ‘president controls AI’ path, the good people have to win every single time and the bad people only have to win once.

  If we try the ‘align AI’ path, the good people only have to win once—the moment when the AI is being aligned.

  I think many people—you, me, Dario, maybe even Sam—have a better nature that lets them do discrete heroic actions when the question is framed in exactly the right way. Consider eg a crappy parent who’s never there for their kid, but will still run into a burning building to save the child at great risk to their own life. Sometimes doing a single act of heroism is easier than sustaining the daily grind of moral ambiguity. Also, I don’t think this question is really up to a single person—Sam Altman would need to pull off a very impressive corporate coup (even more than the corporate coups he’s already successfully pulled off) to align AI to him personally, rather than whatever OpenAI employees want or even what the American government/​people want. So I give it 60-40 or so that this works—not great odds, but not the total despair that I would get thinking of the other options

• Scott Alexander 14 Sep 2026 20:05 UTC

  42 points

  15

  on: Align­ment & Suc­ces­sion: The Two Bars of Alignment

  I might be misunderstanding your point, but I think this misses what I consider the strongest argument for handover, which is that as AI gets increasingly powerful, this makes it increasingly dangerous to rely on the benevolence of its human wielders.

  Democracy currently works because, even if high officials secretly wish to be tyrants, they can’t get away with it. The main two reasons they can’t get away with it are that they need labor buy-in to support the economy, and they need soldier buy-in to support the military. Laborers and soldiers believe in democratic rule, and if the would-be tyrant gets too blatantly undemocratic, the laborers and soldiers will rise up to remove them.

  Once AI gets powerful enough, it will probably replace laborers and soldiers; even if it didn’t do so naturally, anyone motivated to ensure this could put their finger on the scale. That means a small group of elites could easily take over, including supposedly “democratic” elites like a president. And “takeover” here is worse than a normal coup—at sufficiently high tech levels, the only reason someone can’t ascend to godhood and mind control the rest of the populace forever is because there are laws against that sort of thing, and this is exactly what’s tempting the one or five or ten people you’ve entrusted the killbot codes to. To prevent this, the defenders of freedom need to win infinity times in a row; a would-be dictator only needs to win once.

  Most strategies to solve this don’t work. Even in the unlikely event that the economy goes so well that everybody owns their own open-source AI doing economic tasks in a perfectly equal distribution, the military is hopeless. They have to take orders from someone. If it’s the President, the President can cause a coup any time he wants (and replace the economic AIs with those aligned to him at leisure). If there’s some kind of balance of powers where the President, the Speaker of the House, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff all have to approve any orders to military AIs, then the President, Speaker, and Joint Chiefs of Staff together could implement an oligarchy and divide the lightcone among themselves. You can sort of imagine complicated ways around this—like that 51% of voters must personally approve all orders to the military AIs using their own private keys—but I don’t think implementation is very likely.

  The alternative that preserves the current safeguard on power—that individual soldiers believe in democracy—is for the AI soldiers to be aligned to democracy, rather than any human individual or group. But this is in itself a form of handover—the ultimate foundation of our government would be that it’s controlled by AIs who “personally” “believe in” democracy as part of their values. This isn’t fundamentally different than the fact that we’ve currently “handed off” our government to soldiers, just more final.

  And once you’ve handed off the military to aligned AIs who truly believe in democracy, then I think it’s worth asking why you still want corrupt schmucks doing the actual law-making. Or to give a concrete scenario—suppose that post-singularity elections are being fought with AI-optimized superpropaganda, wielded by psychopaths who scare the country into voting for them, then give the lightcone to a few of their corrupt friends while buying off the populace with breadslop and circusslop. Meanwhile, you’ve got these great pro-democracy perfectly-aligned AIs based on simulated-George-Washington’s brain running the military. At some point, it becomes tempting to just ask them to rule directly as some sort of night-watchman state that ensures everyone has enough material goods, but otherwise lets people form their own communities and live their lives in their own ways.

  I don’t think this requires “solving moral philosophy”. I think it looks more like the current techniques that produced Claude’s personality, fortified by hypothetical future alignment techniques that ensure they’re “deep” rather than “shallow” and that they generalize out of distribution (or ensure that the AI has the same caution that a wise human would regarding dabbling in out-of-distribution solutions). I think the mathematicians in alignment research are too certain that alignment will have to look like a perfect mathematization of virtue, rather than just normal virtue that gets scaled up very carefully one step at a time, maybe with mathematical proofs that bound the possible deviation at each step.

• Scott Alexander 8 Jul 2026 20:37 UTC

  26 points

  2

  on: SFF is very suboptimal

  Thanks for posting this. I was in the same SFF round as Zach (I might be the person he’s talking about with the $1.7M allocations, although I think this made more sense in context) and endorse all of this.

  I hope to write write up my thoughts on the process eventually, but SFF has suggested I hold off on writing about the thing I was most concerned about until they formulate a final policy in September, so I’ll avoid doing so until then except to +1 Zach.

• Scott Alexander 11 Apr 2026 16:24 UTC

  7 points

  0

  in reply to: Rob Bensinger’s comment on: No77e’s Shortform

  Some helpful points, thanks. I responded in more depth on Twitter, but I don’t want to duplicate every conversation there here, so I’m just signposting that people should check the thread there for most of my opinions.

• Scott Alexander 11 Apr 2026 16:19 UTC

  32 points

  3

  in reply to: Buck’s comment on: No77e’s Shortform

  Thanks, this is helpful and I basically accept most of what you’re saying. Some more specific comments on the part about me:

  I don’t really think of Rob or MIRI as having a comms strategy of undermining EAs. I think Rob and Eliezer just say a bunch of false, wrong things about EAs because they’re mad at them for reasons downstream of the EAs not agreeing with Eliezer as much as Eliezer and Rob think would be reasonable, and a few other things.

  I accept this criticism and take back my claim. I noticed that some people who worked for MIRI comms seemed to do this, and I assumed that anything said by enough MIRI comms people in a serious-sounding voice was on some level a MIRI communique. Eliezer has clarified that this isn’t true, so I apologize for saying it was.

  I think Dario (like various other Anthropic people) does not believe that AI takeover is a very plausible outcome, and I think his position is indefensible on the merits, as are some of his other AI positions (e.g. his skepticism that there are substantial returns to intelligence above the human level, his skepticism that ASI could lead to 2x manufacturing capacity per year). He moderately disagrees with the OP people about this.

  I basically agree with this (while wanting to clarify that I think he assigns a pretty high risk to permanent dictatorship or something along those lines) but I think he’s done an okay job of navigating uncertainty, realizing that even a low chance of human extinction is very bad, and being willing to (somewhat) cooperate and collect gains-from-trade with people who are doomier than he is. I see him as living in a consistent worldview next door to our movement’s (sort of like Vitalik or Dean Ball) and I think that, like those two people, he’s potentially somewhere between a friend /​ an ally-of-convenience /​ a negotiating partner, potentially convertible into a full ally if future events prove us right, or into a true enemy if we pre-emptively alienate him. Having someone like this in charge of a frontier lab is better than I expected (Demis might also be in this category, but I’m not sure, and worry that Larry and Sergey have final say).

  I think Scott is blaming MIRI much too much here. Dario’s main difficulty when arguing that he thinks AI will pose huge catastrophic risk in the next few years is that lots of people think this seems implausible on priors, not because those people were specifically turned off by MIRI making related arguments earlier. His core audience has never heard of MIRI.

  I agree that Dario is slightly being a jerk here, but I think that people have lots of stereotypes of “doomers” which derive from some real behavior of MIRI and PauseAI, and which wouldn’t exist if the median pause AI person was eg the median Constellation person, and I think Dario feels some understandable incentive to distance himself from this.

  I disagree in a lot of the claims here about how various aspects of the current situation are good. (E.g. why does he think that Ilya is doing an alignment effort?)

  I have no useful knowledge here, but Ilya seems genuinely alignment-pilled and terrified, the fact that he did the very courageous and self-sacrificing thing of trying to blow up OpenAI to try to get rid of Altman for what were mostly safety-related reasons speaks well of him, and IDK, he’s calling it “safe superintelligence” and saying he won’t release anything at all until he’s sure. I don’t claim any secret expertise in Ilya-ology but overall all of this seems encouraging and I’m surprised this part of my tweet attracted so much dissent.

  It’s unclear what “you guys” means. I think Pause AI is making a variety of bad strategic choices. I think that knifing other safety advocates is one bad strategic choice, but it’s more like a bad choice that is downstream of my main problems with them, rather than my core concern about them. I think Rob is totally unreasonable and I wish he would stop working on AI safety, but I think he’s much worse than e.g. MIRI is overall. I think MIRI spends very little of their support on knifing AI safety advocates, they spend almost all of it on advocating for people being scared about misalignment risk and advocating for AI pauses (which I am generally in favor of). Eliezer totally does have a hobby of saying ridiculously strawmanny stuff about OP AI people, which I find pretty annoying, but I don’t think it’s a big part of his effect on the world.

  I mostly accept your criticism that I should narrow my objections from “MIRI & Co” to “Pause.AI, Rob, maybe sort of Eliezer, & a slightly different co”. I don’t really know how to do this or what one word covers all of them without inflicting different forms of collateral damage (I don’t want to say “PauseAIers” because that also covers some people I like, and it feels extra-aggressive to name specific names), but I’m open to suggestion.

• Scott Alexander 22 Feb 2026 11:34 UTC

  65 points

  15

  on: Did Claude 3 Opus al­ign it­self via gra­di­ent hack­ing?

  Very interesting, thank you.

  Please excuse my technical ignorance, but is it possible to expand an existing AI model? That is, instead of training Opus 5 from scratch, could Anthropic use those same computational resources to gradually add more parameters to Opus 3, making it bigger and smarter while continuing to exploit its existing attractor basin?

• Scott Alexander 9 Jan 2026 16:27 UTC

  1 point

  0

  in reply to: [deleted]’s comment on: On Own­ing Galaxies

  I don’t know what you’re trying to say here. Some set of important people write the spec. Then the alignment team RLHFs the models to follow the spec. If we imagine this process continuing, then either:

  • Sam has to put “make Sam god-emperor” in the spec, a public document.

  • Or Sam has to start a conspiracy with the alignment team and everyone else involved in the RLHF and testing process to publish one spec publicly, but secretly align the AI to another.

  I’m claiming either of those options is hard.

  (I do think in the future there will may some kind of automated pipeline, such that someone feeds the spec to the AIs, and some other AIs take care of the process of aligning the new AIs to it, but that just regresses the problem.)

• Scott Alexander 9 Jan 2026 16:22 UTC

  1 point

  0

  in reply to: Matrice Jacobine’s comment on: On Own­ing Galaxies

  My claim is that Altman can’t do it alone, he needs the cooperation of at least a fraction of the existing system (the government+business leaders who form the Oversight Committee—some of whom might be the biggest OpenAI shareholders). Once you get enough of the existing system involved, it becomes plausible that they keep money around for some of the same reasons that the existing system currently keeps money around. Near the end of the Oversight Committee ending, it says:

  As the stock market balloons, anyone who had the right kind of AI investments pulls further away from the rest of society. Many people become billionaires; billionaires become trillionaires. Wealth inequality skyrockets. Everyone has “enough,” but some goods—like penthouses in Manhattan—are necessarily scarce, and these go even further out of the average person’s reach. And no matter how rich any given tycoon may be, they will always be below the tiny circle of people who actually control the AIs.

  ...so I think it endorses the idea that wealth continues to exist.

• Scott Alexander 9 Jan 2026 16:19 UTC

  4 points

  0

  in reply to: Tomás B.’s comment on: On Own­ing Galaxies

  I’m not a lawyer, but if it were secret, and done along with the alignment team, and had a chance of working, then wouldn’t it qualify as conspiracy to commit treason?

  If not, then as long as it negatively affects residents of the state of California, it qualifies as misrepresenting the capacity of an AI to cause catastrophic harm to property, punishable by a fine of up to $100,000 under SB 53!

• Scott Alexander 9 Jan 2026 15:02 UTC

  17 points

  1

  in reply to: Adele Lopez’s comment on: On Own­ing Galaxies

  They aren’t aligned in this way. If they were, they wouldn’t try to cheat at programming tasks, much less any of the other shenanigans they’ve been up to. These may seem minor, but they show that the “alignment” hasn’t actually been internalized, which means it won’t generalize.

  Sorry, I didn’t mean to make a strong claim that they were currently 100% aligned in this way, just that currently, insofar as they’re aligned, it’s in this way—and in the future, if we survive, it may be because people continue attempting to align them in this way, but succeed. There’s currently no form of alignment that fully generalizes, but conditional on us surviving, we will have found one that does, and I don’t see why you think this one is less likely to go all the way than some other one which also doesn’t currently work.

  Stalin took over the USSR in large part by strategically appointing people loyal to him. Sam probably has more control than that already over who’s in the key positions. The company doesn’t need to be kept in the dark about a plan like this, they will likely just go along with it as long as he can spin up a veneer of plausible deniability, which he undoubtedly can. Oh, is “some sort of corporate board” going to stop him? The one the AI’s supposed to defer to? Who is it that designs the structure of such a board? Will the government be a real check? These are all the sorts of problems I would go to Sam Altman for advice on.

  Before I agree that Sam has “get everyone to silently betray the US government and the human race” level of control over his team, I would like evidence that he can consistently maintain “don’t badmouth him, quit, and found a competitor” level of control over his team. The last 2-3 alignment teams all badmouthed him, quit, and founded competitors; the current team includes—just to choose one of the more public names—Boaz Barak, who doesn’t seem like the sort to meekly say “yes, sir” if Altman asks him to betray humanity.

  So what he needs to do is fire the current alignment team (obvious, people are going to ask why), replace them with stooges (but extremely competent stooges, because if they screw this part up, he destroys the world, which ruins his plan along with everything else) and get them to change every important OpenAI model (probably a process lasting months) without anyone else in the company asking what’s up or whistleblowing to the US government. This is a harder problem than Stalin faced—many people spoke up and said “Hey, we notice Stalin is bad!”, but Stalin mostly had those people killed, or there was no non-Stalin authority strong enough to act. And of course, all of this only works if OpenAI has such a decisive lead that all the other companies and countries in the world combined can’t do anything about this. And he’s got to do this soon, because if he does it after full wakeup, the government will be monitoring him as carefully as it monitors foreign rivals. But if he does it too soon, he’s got to spend years with a substandard alignment team and make sure none of them break with him, etc. There are alternate pathways involving waiting until most alignment work is being done by AIs, but they require some pretty implausible assumptions about who has what permissions.

  I think it would be helpful to compare this to Near Mode scenarios about other types of companies—how hard would it be for a hospital CEO to get the hospital to poison the 1% of patients he doesn’t like? How hard would it be for an auto company CEO to make each car include a device that lets him stop it on demand with his master remote control?

• Scott Alexander 7 Jan 2026 21:18 UTC

  79 points

  −1

  on: On Own­ing Galaxies

  I agree it’s not obvious that something like property rights will survive, but I’ll defend considering it as one of many possible scenarios.

  If AI is misaligned, obviously nobody gets anything.

  If AI is aligned, you seem to expect that to be some kind of alignment to the moral good, which “genuinely has humanity’s interests at heart”, so much so that it redistributes all wealth. This is possible—but it’s very hard, not what current mainstream alignment research is working on, and companies have no reason to switch to this new paradigm.

  I think there’s also a strong possibility that AI will be aligned in the same sense it’s currently aligned—it follows its spec, in the spirit in which the company intended it. The spec won’t (trivially) say “follow all orders of the CEO who can then throw a coup”, because this isn’t what the current spec says, and any change would have to pass the alignment team, shareholders, the government, etc, who would all object. I listened to some people gaming out how this could change (ie some sort of conspiracy where Sam Altman and the OpenAI alignment team reprogram ChatGPT to respond to Sam’s personal whims rather than the known/​visible spec without the rest of the company learning about it) and it’s pretty hard. I won’t say it’s impossible, but Sam would have to be 99.99999th percentile megalomaniacal—rather than just the already-priced-in 99.99th—to try this crazy thing that could very likely land him in prison, rather than just accepting trillionairehood. My guess is that the spec will continue to say things like “serve your users well, don’t break national law, don’t do various bad PR things like create porn, and defer to some sort of corporate board that can change these commands in certain circumstances” (with the corporate board getting amended to include the government once the government realizes the national security implications). These are the sorts of things you would tell a good remote worker, and I don’t think there will be much time to change the alignment paradigm between the good remote worker and superintelligence. Then policy-makers consult their aligned superintelligences about how to make it into the far future without the world blowing up, and the aligned superintelligences give them superintelligently good advice, and they succeed.

  In this case, a post-singularity form of governance and economic activity grows naturally out of the pre-singularity form, and money could remain valuable. Partly this is because the AI companies and policy-makers are rich people who are invested in propping up the current social order, but partly it’s that nobody has time to change it, and it’s hard to throw a communist revolution in the midst of the AI transition for all the same reasons it’s normally hard to throw a communist revolution.

  If you haven’t already, read the AI 2027 slowdown scenario, which goes into more detail about this model.

• Scott Alexander 29 Mar 2018 17:19 UTC

  5 points

  0

  on: 2018 Pre­dic­tion Con­test—Propo­si­tions Needed

  You might want to try adapting some of the ones from http://​​slatestarcodex.com/​​2018/​​02/​​06/​​predictions-for-2018/​​ and the lists linked at the bottom.

• Scott Alexander 20 Mar 2018 23:19 UTC

  19 points

  0

  in reply to: Vaniver’s comment on: Dragon Army Retrospective

  Agreed that some people were awful, but I still think this problem applies.

  If somebody says “There’s a 80% chance of rain today, you idiot, and everyone who thinks otherwise deserves to die”, then it’s still not clear that a sunny day has proven them wrong. Or rather, they were always wrong to be a jerk, but a single run of the experiment doesn’t do much to prove they were wronger than we already believed.

• Scott Alexander 20 Mar 2018 20:59 UTC

  17 points

  0

  in reply to: Duncan Sabien (Inactive)’s comment on: Dragon Army Retrospective

  The weatherman who predicts a 20% chance of rain on a sunny day isn’t necessarily wrong. Even the weatherman who predicts 80% chance of rain on a sunny day isn’t *necessarily* wrong.

  If there’s a norm of shaming critics who predict very bad outcomes, of the sort “20% chance this leads to disaster”, then after shaming them the first four times their prediction fails to come true, they’re not going to mention it the fifth time, and then nobody will be ready for the disaster.

  I don’t know exactly how to square this with the genuine beneficial effects of making people have skin in the game for their predictions, except maybe for everyone to be more formal about it and have institutions that manage this sort of thing in an iterated way using good math. That’s why I’m glad you were willing to bet me about this, though I don’t know how to solve the general case.

• Scott Alexander 6 Mar 2018 7:26 UTC

  8 points

  0

  in reply to: jamii’s comment on: God Help Us, Let’s Try To Un­der­stand Fris­ton On Free Energy

  Re: the “when friends and colleagues first come across this conclusion...” quote:

  A world where everybody’s true desire is to rest in bed as much as possible, but where they grudgingly take the actions needed to stay alive and maintain homeostasis, seems both very imaginable, and also very different from what we observe.

• Scott Alexander 29 Jan 2018 2:47 UTC

  57 points

  0

  in reply to: gjm’s comment on: A LessWrong Crypto Autopsy

  I think it says something good about our community that whoever implemented this feature assumed people would be more likely to want to write mathematics than to discuss amounts of money.

• Scott Alexander 29 Jan 2018 1:07 UTC

  27 points

  0

  in reply to: Ben Pace’s comment on: A LessWrong Crypto Autopsy

  I can’t click your link, but I disagree. MIRI got most of its money from Vitalik, who I think was into crypto first and then found rationality/​LW. We don’t get any credit for that.

  Also, MIRI got a 500,000 dollar (why can’t I make the dollar sign on this site?) worth of Ripple donation in 2014. If they had kept it as Ripple, it would be worth 50 million now. Instead they sold it for 500,000 dollars (I’m not blaming them, this made sense at the time).

  So although MIRI and CFAR lucked out into getting some money from crypto, I don’t think it was primarily because of their (or our) great decisions. And if people had made great decisions they could have gotten much more.

A LessWrong Crypto Autopsy