6 ms·

We have all sorts of processes , procedures, and regulations for people, machine use etc. to address "alignment" in all sorts of fields - don't think we need to

We have all sorts of processes , procedures, and regulations for people, machine use etc. to address "alignment" in all sorts of fields - don't think we need to narrowly rely on the machine here and can look at things with a wider lens.

_heimdall 22d ago
Regulations are for control and punishment, not alignment.
- RandomLensman 22d ago
  Regulations can help align processes, incentives, etc. Not sure heavy machinery is aligned in the sense that people talk about AI, for example.
  - _heimdall 21d ago
    No, regulations help control they don't help align. I'm not sure what AI and heavy machinery have to do with each other, but I may just be missing a connection there.
    - RandomLensman 21d ago
      Align the possible outcomes, not necessarily the thing itself. Do we align heavy machinery the way AI is suggested to be aligned (or align pathogens when in a laboratory)? My point is that something more like containment & control (i.e., aligning the possible outcomes) might be more practical than alignment of the thing (already much simpler systems and machinery can exhibit unexpected behavior).
      - _heimdall 21d ago
        Oh we do agree there, control is more practical. I don't personally think alignment is even possible. The problem with control is that it will fail at scale. We can't control something that is actually smarter than us, if AI (LLMs or otherwise) get there. Chimps wouldn't last long trying to contains humans. Maybe for a while they'd keep us scared, but we would come up with ways to escape that the chimp could never have considered.
        RandomLensman 21d ago
        I disagree there. Gut bacteria or parasites might have some control over us, for example. Likewise humans can control more intelligent humans, for example - not really an issue. Intelligence isn't some magic to escape physics, for example (or convince every human of anything it wants to).

_heimdall 22d ago

Regulations are for control and punishment, not alignment.

RandomLensman 22d ago
Regulations can help align processes, incentives, etc. Not sure heavy machinery is aligned in the sense that people talk about AI, for example.
- _heimdall 21d ago
  No, regulations help control they don't help align. I'm not sure what AI and heavy machinery have to do with each other, but I may just be missing a connection there.
  - RandomLensman 21d ago
    Align the possible outcomes, not necessarily the thing itself. Do we align heavy machinery the way AI is suggested to be aligned (or align pathogens when in a laboratory)? My point is that something more like containment & control (i.e., aligning the possible outcomes) might be more practical than alignment of the thing (already much simpler systems and machinery can exhibit unexpected behavior).
    - _heimdall 21d ago
      Oh we do agree there, control is more practical. I don't personally think alignment is even possible. The problem with control is that it will fail at scale. We can't control something that is actually smarter than us, if AI (LLMs or otherwise) get there. Chimps wouldn't last long trying to contains humans. Maybe for a while they'd keep us scared, but we would come up with ways to escape that the chimp could never have considered.
      - RandomLensman 21d ago
        I disagree there. Gut bacteria or parasites might have some control over us, for example. Likewise humans can control more intelligent humans, for example - not really an issue. Intelligence isn't some magic to escape physics, for example (or convince every human of anything it wants to).