to me “alignment tax” usually only refers to alignment methods that don’t cost-effectively increase capabilities, so if 90% of alignment methods did cost effectively increase capabilities but 10% did not, i would still say there was an “alignment tax”, just ignore the negatives.
Also, it’s important to consider cost-effective capabilities rather than raw capabilities—if a lab knows of a way to increase capabilities more cost-effectively than alignment, using that money for alignment is a positive alignment tax
I think this risks getting into a definitions dispute about what concept the words ‘alignment tax’ should point at. Even if one grants the point about resource allocation being inherently zero-sum, our whole claim here is that some alignment techniques might indeed be the most cost-effective way to improve certain capabilities and that these techniques seem worth pursuing for that very reason.
to me “alignment tax” usually only refers to alignment methods that don’t cost-effectively increase capabilities, so if 90% of alignment methods did cost effectively increase capabilities but 10% did not, i would still say there was an “alignment tax”, just ignore the negatives.
Also, it’s important to consider cost-effective capabilities rather than raw capabilities—if a lab knows of a way to increase capabilities more cost-effectively than alignment, using that money for alignment is a positive alignment tax
I think this risks getting into a definitions dispute about what concept the words ‘alignment tax’ should point at. Even if one grants the point about resource allocation being inherently zero-sum, our whole claim here is that some alignment techniques might indeed be the most cost-effective way to improve certain capabilities and that these techniques seem worth pursuing for that very reason.