@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

@mcc @glyph I think the biases in a random process (or more generally, the particular distribution) can still align with somebody else's biases and/or expectations. People have this thing where when you say "random", they immediately imagine some kind of fair lottery, with every option equally probable.

@deshipu @mcc @glyph yeah the flat distribution is commonly considered random, but really no distribution isn't an idealized model, even when biased. randomness, as statisticians like to talk about it, does not even exist.

@travisfw @mcc @glyph are you saying bayesians are not statisticians?

@deshipu @travisfw @mcc @glyph there's people who apply Bayes' theorem and then there's *Bayesians*