Well, it makes things better. But it doesn’t assure humanity’s success by any means. Basically I agree but will just redirect you back to my analogy about why the paper “How to solve nuclear reactor design” is strange.
The paper you describe in your comment would have a lot of it’s details filled in by default by the capabilities people inside an AI lab, and the alignment team would outsource most of the details to the people who would want to make the AI go fast.
While I don’t think it would ensure humanity’s success by any means, I do think that the alignment field could mostly declare victory and stop working if we knew there were no problems that were resistant to iterative correction, since other people will solve it for us.
Well, it makes things better. But it doesn’t assure humanity’s success by any means. Basically I agree but will just redirect you back to my analogy about why the paper “How to solve nuclear reactor design” is strange.
The paper you describe in your comment would have a lot of it’s details filled in by default by the capabilities people inside an AI lab, and the alignment team would outsource most of the details to the people who would want to make the AI go fast.
While I don’t think it would ensure humanity’s success by any means, I do think that the alignment field could mostly declare victory and stop working if we knew there were no problems that were resistant to iterative correction, since other people will solve it for us.