zlacker

>>maxuti+(OP)
> For a leadership offsite this year, according to two people familiar with the event, Sutskever commissioned a wooden effigy from a local artist that was intended to represent an “unaligned” AI—that is, one that does not meet a human’s objectives. He set it on fire to symbolize OpenAI’s commitment to its founding principles.

Honestly, pretty sick

>>rmorey+l3
Which particular human's objectives did it not align with?

>>quickt+05
The idea of "alignment" is pretty troubling to me. Do these people think that they, or those in power have achieved moral perfection, such that it would be good to have extremely powerful AI systems under their control, aligned with them?

Imagine if the US or any other government of 1800s came gained so much power, 'locking-in' their repugnant values as the moral truth, backed by total control of the world.

>>archon+M5
No, I don’t think they do, which is another point in the “alignment is a very big problem” column.

The problem of defining “what’s a good outcome” is a sub problem of alignment.