@glyph I do think there is an interesting perspective where computer software based on deterministic execution of instructions *can* be aligned with the goals of a user but computer software based on a trained statistical model cannot, technically, be aligned with anything at all as there is inherently random behavior. But we can't conceptualize that problem because the capital class is lying and saying that their computer has a soul because they named it "Cylde" and drew googly eyes on it

@glyph Even without the "Clyde" problem it's hard to talk about because there's a historical notion of a probabilistic algorithm where you have stochastic behavior operating with proven bounds and a provable distribution of behaviors, and the new type of statistics-based software where the software just sort of does whatever and we don't even discuss it as if it were statistics-based we call it "intelligence"

@mcc no disagreement with any of that, but the “AI alignment problem” is specified by its advocates in terms of “universal human values”. the stipulated “alignment” is not with specific user desires or a stated optimization objective but with those putative (imagined) values

@mcc the first problem of course is that it ignores society and culture and difference and the entire concept of politics[1], but the second issue that I am highlighting here is that *to the extent* that there are sufficiently popular values that we might call them “universal” and “human”, and *to the extent* that we have an entity that actually poses a threat to those values, it is the capital class.

@mcc [1]: inb4 somebody says they actually wrestle with those things at extremely exhaustive length: they mostly try to rationalize those things away, which is not the same process