I disagree in the sense that I don’t think current systems are intelligent enough for “aligned” to be a relevant adjective. “Safe”, or “controllable” seem much better, while I would reserve the term “aligned” for the much stronger property that a system is robustly behaving in accordance with our interests. I agree with Steven Byrnes that “locally aligned” doesn’t even make much sense (“performing as intended under xyz circumstances” would be much more descripitive)
I’m generally in favour of distinguishing control and alignment, but I don’t think that it makes much difference in this case. A system without some combination of control and alignment is no use.
Then it’s a problem that people keep conflating alignment with safety, even though one doesn’t imply the other. So it’d be better for TAG to rephrase it as “A completely unsafe system would be useless. Current systems aren’t completely useless, so they are at least partially safe.”
I disagree in the sense that I don’t think current systems are intelligent enough for “aligned” to be a relevant adjective. “Safe”, or “controllable” seem much better, while I would reserve the term “aligned” for the much stronger property that a system is robustly behaving in accordance with our interests. I agree with Steven Byrnes that “locally aligned” doesn’t even make much sense (“performing as intended under xyz circumstances” would be much more descripitive)
I’m generally in favour of distinguishing control and alignment, but I don’t think that it makes much difference in this case. A system without some combination of control and alignment is no use.
Then it’s a problem that people keep conflating alignment with safety, even though one doesn’t imply the other. So it’d be better for TAG to rephrase it as “A completely unsafe system would be useless. Current systems aren’t completely useless, so they are at least partially safe.”