Come now, I know you’re able to do a search for “criticisms of Jungian psychology” or similar. This sort of objection is hardly new. (Surely you’re not just right now, for the first time, encountering such a view? If you are—well, you’ve got a lot of reading to do!)
In any case, it seems to me that you’ve got your answer, regardless of whether you agree with it: Carl Jung is not popular in alignment research because the prevailing view is that his theories are not even remotely rigorous enough to be relevant.
Thanks for a much more clearer answer. I tried looking here in the forum if there are of such nature of discussion on Carl Jung’s theories but found very little. That is why I asked here why. But, in my practice as a business professional—his theories were very helpful in determining fraudulent behaviour and capacity of workers to create errors… I just see it as something that alignment research might need to reconsider.. especially the idea that humans have a subconscious layer in their thinking -not just merely goal/reward driven.
The idea that individuals are driven by subconscious or unconscious instincts is a well established fact of psychology. The idea of a collective unconscious, in the way the Jung described it, is the unfalsifiable woo.
It is a belief that doesn’t pay rent. Let’s assume that there is such a thing as a collective unconscious, which is the source of archetypes. What additional predictions does this enable? Why should I add the notion of a collective unconscious to my existing psychological theory? Why shouldn’t I trim away this epicycle with Occam’s Razor?
I know this will not answer your questions directly but there are currently patterns in AI that appears to be fitting to be debugged by Jungian analysis.. Like this one:
The davinci model can conjure sophisticated stories out the tokens Leilan and petertodd.
Archetypes, individuation, the collective unconscious, etc.
Why describe them as unfalisifiable woo? Do you have a basis you can share?
Come now, I know you’re able to do a search for “criticisms of Jungian psychology” or similar. This sort of objection is hardly new. (Surely you’re not just right now, for the first time, encountering such a view? If you are—well, you’ve got a lot of reading to do!)
In any case, it seems to me that you’ve got your answer, regardless of whether you agree with it: Carl Jung is not popular in alignment research because the prevailing view is that his theories are not even remotely rigorous enough to be relevant.
Thanks for a much more clearer answer. I tried looking here in the forum if there are of such nature of discussion on Carl Jung’s theories but found very little. That is why I asked here why. But, in my practice as a business professional—his theories were very helpful in determining fraudulent behaviour and capacity of workers to create errors… I just see it as something that alignment research might need to reconsider.. especially the idea that humans have a subconscious layer in their thinking -not just merely goal/reward driven.
The idea that individuals are driven by subconscious or unconscious instincts is a well established fact of psychology. The idea of a collective unconscious, in the way the Jung described it, is the unfalsifiable woo.
Thanks for your comment. Can you elaborate on why you believe Jung’s theory on the collective unconscious is an unfalsifiable woo?
It is a belief that doesn’t pay rent. Let’s assume that there is such a thing as a collective unconscious, which is the source of archetypes. What additional predictions does this enable? Why should I add the notion of a collective unconscious to my existing psychological theory? Why shouldn’t I trim away this epicycle with Occam’s Razor?
I know this will not answer your questions directly but there are currently patterns in AI that appears to be fitting to be debugged by Jungian analysis.. Like this one:
The davinci model can conjure sophisticated stories out the tokens Leilan and petertodd.
https://twitter.com/SoC_trilogy/status/1638016382037110784?t=XvdXSJLK2vbNIemZqSWaZA&s=19
I fail to see how Jungian analysis can actually debug LLMs better than the approach that Robert_AIZI used in their analysis of the “SolidGoldMagikarp” glitch token.