The people writing AI alignment policy are not whose work is being replaced • Hacker News Board

Re: The people writing AI alignment policy are not whose work is being replaced

#71

Post by customguy » Sun, May 17, 2026, 4:27 AM UTC

kranke155 wrote: post #68

customguy wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"meant to"? What does that mean?

I thought the comment above implied that somehow, humanity and its constructed civilisations ought to be stable really, if it wasn’t for the bad actors in the system making such bad decisions, and how it all ends up throwing the system into periods of chaos that end up threatening the system itself with wars, disasters, etc. My counter to that is that you might be describing a naturally cyclically unstable system (li…

I still am confused, maybe because English isn't my first language. As in "you should not be mean to people" versus "it should be sunny today".

IMO it's not a "system" that exists outside of us, it's something we make and sustain so we can live. A child doesn't necessarily grow up in a stable environment, but if it doesn't, it cannot learn (we need a save have to retreat to to process new stimuli, to put it briefly). If it's so unstable that temperature randomly goes up to 1000°C it doesn't even live.

Does the universe care? "Should" humans exist? "Should" something rather than nothing exist? I would argue it doesn't matter, what matters for us is what we want, and why we want it etc.

Re: The people writing AI alignment policy are not whose work is being replaced

#72

Post by kranke155 » Tue, May 19, 2026, 7:21 PM UTC

customguy wrote: post #71

kranke155 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought the comment above implied that somehow, humanity and its constructed civilisations ought to be stable really, if it wasn’t for the bad actors in the system making such bad decisions, and how it all ends up throwing the system into periods of chaos that end up threatening the system itself with wars, disasters, etc. My counter to that is that you might be describing a naturally cyclically unstable system (li…

I still am confused, maybe because English isn't my first language. As in "you should not be mean to people" versus "it should be sunny today". IMO it's not a "system" that exists outside of us, it's something we make and sustain so we can live. A child doesn't necessarily grow up in a stable environment, but if it doesn't, it cannot learn (we need a save have to retreat to to process new stimuli, to put it briefly).…

This assumes we can pick and choose outcomes, which I dont believe we can at scale.

Essentially, civilization is an organism, and no cell (a person) can really affect it, except mostly negatively. The positive change is just stay alive, dont eff it up for others, and actively help the people around you. I think thats it.

Re: The people writing AI alignment policy are not whose work is being replaced

#73

Post by tinfoilhatter » Thu, May 21, 2026, 2:54 PM UTC

rexpop wrote: post #70

tinfoilhatter wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They called me a schizo in two separate comments and the only thing I did in my original post, was point out that his name was Altman which could be interpreted as alternate man. I never claimed that it was the etymological root of his name - the folks making the replies got upset for whatever reason and inferred that. Pointing things out that I find interesting to potential readers of my comment, doesn't necessarily…

Going forward, I'll consider using the term "apophenic", instead of "schizoid", but my point remains the same—you are burying the lede, re: very real, dangerous ideologies of Yarvin et al. with unserious associations like "alternate man", and even the bizarre, esoteric epithet "Luciferian."

Luciferian is not an esoteric epithet. The UN is and was advised by Alice Bailey and the Lucis trust she created, which used to be called the Lucifer trust. You're simply displaying your ignorance and on top of it, acting like a complete asshole, because of your fragile ego and worldview. That's par for the course on this website though.

If the UN is actively being advised by self-described Luciferians / theosophists, do you think it's impossible that there are other Luciferians in powerful positions around the world? It's definitely possible and not only is it possible, it's the truth, whether you want to admit it or not. Clearly you don't read what these people write, or know the history and associations of the people you talk about. You're a know-it-all that knows nothing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucis_Trust

https://www.lucistrust.org/about_us/support_un

https://www.theblaze.com/return/what-the-un-isnt-telling-us-...