21–30 of 75 posts
That struck me as a pretty big hand-wave. Market forces are a huge constraint on alignment. Markets have responded (directionally) correctly to the nonsense at Grok. People won’t buy tokens from models that violate their values.
The argument against AI alignment is that humans aren't aligned either. Humans (and other life) are also self-perpetuating and mutating. We could produce a super intelligence that is against us at any moment! Should we "take steps" to ensure that doesn't happen? If not, then what's the argument there? That life hasn't caused a catastrophe so far, therefore it's not going to in the future? The arguments are the same f…
there is fundamental limit to how much damage one person can do by speaking directly to others
e.g.: one impact of one bad school teacher is limited to at most a few classes
but chatgpt/grok is emitting its statistically generated dogshit directly to entire world of kids
... and voters
> Any “alignment” that exists is alignment with the owner’s interests, constrained only by market forces and regulation. That struck me as a pretty big hand-wave. Market forces are a huge constraint on alignment. Markets have responded (directionally) correctly to the nonsense at Grok. People won’t buy tokens from models that violate their values.
The argument against AI alignment is that humans aren't aligned either. Humans (and other life) are also self-perpetuating and mutating. We could produce a super intelligence that is against us at any moment! Should we "take steps" to ensure that doesn't happen? If not, then what's the argument there? That life hasn't caused a catastrophe so far, therefore it's not going to in the future? The arguments are the same f…
If the cognitive capabilities of people or some species of animal had been improving at the rate at which capabilities of AI models have been, then we'd be be right to be extremely worried about it.
What an absolutely repugnant article this is. It is complete slop. Is this what passes for HN worthy today? :(
> The question was never “how do we align AI with human values?” The question was always “which humans get to define those values?” Grok answered that question: the ones with the most money.
Grok is routinely misaligned with Elon, as the article points out in its intro! You don't need to order your engineers to keep fixing what isn't broken...
The argument against AI alignment is that humans aren't aligned either. Humans (and other life) are also self-perpetuating and mutating. We could produce a super intelligence that is against us at any moment! Should we "take steps" to ensure that doesn't happen? If not, then what's the argument there? That life hasn't caused a catastrophe so far, therefore it's not going to in the future? The arguments are the same f…
> Also, it's funny that Elon gets singled out for mandating changes on what the AI is allowed to say when all the other players in the field do the same thing.
"All the other players" aren't deliberately tuning their AI to reflect specific political ideology, nor are all the other players producing Nazi gaffes or racist rhetoric as a result of routine tuning[1].
Yes, it's true that AI is going to reflect its internal prompt engineering and training data, and that's going to be subject to bias on the part of the engineers who produced and curated it. That's not remotely the same thing as deliberately producing an ideological chat engine.
[1] It's also worth pointing out that grok has gotten objectively much worse at political content after all this muckery. It used to be a pretty reasonable fact check and worth reading. Now it tends to disappear on anything political, and where it shows up it's either doing the most limited/bland fact check or engaging in what amounts to spin.