Unless you’re talking about financial conflicts of interest, but there are also financial incentives for orgs pursuing a “radical” strategy to downplay boring real-world constraints, as well as social incentives (e.g. on LessWrong IMO) to downplay boring these constraints and cognitive biases against thinking your preferred strategy has big downsides.
It’s not just that problem though, they will likely be biased to think that their policy is helpful for safety of AI at all, and this is a point that sometimes gets forgotten.
But correct on the fact that Akash’s argument is fully general.
I disagree with this in theory as a long-term concern, but yes in practice the methods to have privacy of communities haven’t been implemented or tested at all, and I agree with the general sentiment that it isn’t worth the steep drawbacks of privacy to protect secrets, which does unfortunately make me dislike the post due to it’s strength of recommendations.
So while I could in theory disagree with you, in practice right now I mostly have to agree with the comment that there will not be such an infrastructure for private alignment ideas.
Also to touch on something here that isn’t too relevant and could be considered a tangent:
This is why perfectionism is such a bad thing, and why you need to be able to accept that failure happens. You cannot have 0 failures IRL.