Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Grok and the Naked King: The Ultimate Argument Against AI Alignment

ibrahimcesar.cloud

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–75 of 75 posts

Re: Grok and the Naked King: The Ultimate Argument Against AI Alignment

#71

Post by eithed »

belZaah wrote: post #54
Aerroon wrote: post #13

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…

The difference is the power people have. A single person has no capacity to spread their specific perspective to tens of millions of people, who take it as gospel. And that person, typically, cannot be made to change their perspective at will.

* stares at presidents / party leaders, religious leaders, social media influencers, tv stars, singers *

No, surely no

Re: Grok and the Naked King: The Ultimate Argument Against AI Alignment

#72

Post by bossyTeacher »

RevEng wrote: post #66

While I agree entirely about what Grok teaches us about alignment, I think the argument that "alignment was never a technical problem" is false. Everything I have ever read about AI safety and alignment have started by pointing out the fundamental problem of deciding what values to align to because humanity doesn't have a consistent set of values. Nonetheless, there is a technical challenge because whatever values we…

> they need others to solve the social problem.

You assume it is a solvable problem. Chances are that you will have bots following laws (as opposed to moral statements) and each jurisdiction will essentially have a different alignment. So in a social conservative country, for example, a bot will tell you not being hetero is wrong and report you to the police if you ask too many questions about it. While, in a queer friendly country, a bot would not behave like this. A bit like how some movies can only be watched in certain countries.

I highly doubt alignment as a concept works beyond making bots follow laws of a given country. And at the end of the day, the enforced laws are essentially the embodiment of the morality of that jurisdiction.

People seem to live in a fictional world if they believe countries won't force LLM companies to force the country's morality in their LLMs whatever their morality is. This is essentially what has happened with intellectual property and media and LLMs likely won't be different.

Re: Grok and the Naked King: The Ultimate Argument Against AI Alignment

#73

Post by kayo_20211030 »

marcosdumay wrote: post #17
kayo_20211030 wrote: post #5

I used to believe that a constitution, as a statement of principles, was sufficient for a civilized, democratic, and pluralist society. I no longer believe that. I believe that only settled law - i.e. a bunch of adjudicated precedents over many years, perhaps hundreds, is the best course. It provides a better basis for what is and what is not allowed. An AI constitution is close to garbage. The 'company' will formula…

You need a just set of laws, a population willing to revolt against the government ignoring crimes, a government willing to persecute the people that breaks the laws badly, and a democratic structure so any one of those can impact the others. A constitution creates that last one. I imagine by "settled law", you are talking about the 3rd. But take any of those away and the entire thing falls apart.

I agree in general, but something one ought never to do is to foreclose a future. Constitutions (AI or otherwise), without some responsive mechanism for adjustment and moderation, would only set today's principles for an eternal, unchanging future. That's not right! Let the future adjust its own course as it sees fit. Set out your stall by all means, but accept some mechanism for course corrections by committing to an adjudicated law process that would serve those necessary adjustments - adjudicated by persons who are democratically "adjacent" at least. Nothing's ever perfect, but I have a quixotic belief in the political process to get the laws right eventually. It's always a political process - puts and takes, but more importantly, it needs to be deliberate, and slow-ish.

Re: Grok and the Naked King: The Ultimate Argument Against AI Alignment

#74

Post by kayo_20211030 »

stingraycharles wrote: post #31
kayo_20211030 wrote: post #5

I used to believe that a constitution, as a statement of principles, was sufficient for a civilized, democratic, and pluralist society. I no longer believe that. I believe that only settled law - i.e. a bunch of adjudicated precedents over many years, perhaps hundreds, is the best course. It provides a better basis for what is and what is not allowed. An AI constitution is close to garbage. The 'company' will formula…

And who decides that? And what when settled law gets revoked? Which country’s laws should be used? Should the AI follow the laws in whatever country it is being used?

I reckon the judiciary of the sovereign entity where the suit is entered would be the best spot for that adjudication i.e. generally, where it's used.

Re: Grok and the Naked King: The Ultimate Argument Against AI Alignment

#75

Post by techblueberry »

Aerroon wrote: post #13

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…

> The big difference just seems to be whose politics are chosen.

Did they call out perplexity? They’re Conservative.

Post reply on HN