For a while I’ve been reading LessWrong, and there’s something that doesn’t make much sense to me, which is the idea that it is possible to align an AGI/superintelligence at all. I understand that it’s probably not even a majority of discussion on LW that is optimistic about the prospect of AI alignment via technology as opposed to other means, but nonetheless, I think it’s skews the discussion.
I should humbly clarify here that I don’t consider myself in the league of most LW posters, but I have very much enjoyed reading the forum nonethless. The alignment question is a bit like the the Collatz conjecture, seductive, only the alignment question intuitively seems... (read 751 more words →)
So the first one is an "AGSI", and the second is an "ANSI" (general vs narrow)?
If I understand correctly... One type of alignment (required for the "AGSI") is what I'm referring to as alignment which is that it is conscious of all of our interests and tries to respect them, like a good friend, and the other is that it's narrow enough in scope that it literally just does that one thing, way better than humans could, but the scope is narrow enough that we can hopefully reason about it and have an idea that it's safe.
Alignment is kind of a confusing term if applied to ANSI, because to me at least... (read more)
The same game theory that has all the players racing to improve their models in spite of ethics and safety concerns will have them getting the models to self improve if that provides an advantage.
Thanks for your response! Could you explain what you mean by "fully general"? Do you mean that alignment of narrow SI is possible? Or that partial alignment of general SI is good enough in some circumstance? If it's the latter could you give an example?
Thank you kind fellow !
You couldn't make it up.