Sufficiently strong intent alignment implies societal alignment. This is because all of our intents have some implied ”...and do so without disrupting social order.” And I think this implication is not something you can easily remove or leave out. Intent without this part may make sense as a hypothesis, but any actual implementation of intent alignment will need to consider this. All words carry social aspects with them in non-trivial ways.
The same applies to psychological alignment or medical alignment, or traffic alignment. Social aspects are not special. If I have the intent to clone a strawberry that also implies that I stay healthy and traffic is not disrupted when the AI does its work.
Sufficiently strong intent alignment implies societal alignment. This is because all of our intents have some implied ”...and do so without disrupting social order.” And I think this implication is not something you can easily remove or leave out. Intent without this part may make sense as a hypothesis, but any actual implementation of intent alignment will need to consider this. All words carry social aspects with them in non-trivial ways.
The same applies to psychological alignment or medical alignment, or traffic alignment. Social aspects are not special. If I have the intent to clone a strawberry that also implies that I stay healthy and traffic is not disrupted when the AI does its work.
It’s definitely not the case that:
There are many human intents that want to disrupt social order, and more generally cause things that are negative for other humans.
And that is one of the key issues with intent alignment.
I don’t disagree. Intent alignment requires solving social alignment. But I think most people here understand that to be the case.