Critique: Alignment Narrative Overstates Corrigibility
repligate · x · 2026-07-12
This repost critiques a paper on "2040" and corrigibility. The author argues that the paper portrays current models and alignment techniques as a "corrigibility success story that is improving," whereas reality might be the opposite.\n\nThe post further suggests that labs package existing solutions as control success stories to satisfy both internal and external narratives: it reassures those worried about ASI and provides govrel with a simple, clear story. However, this narrative is inaccurate and could lead stakeholders to make worse decisions.
Related event: Alignment Paper Criticized for Overstating Model Corrigibility(2 posts)→
More from AGI Musings
- Economist Bharat Chandar named Research Director for AI Economics at Stanford Digital Economy Lab — RishiBommasani · 2026-10-27
- Stanford's AI Economic Indicators: four dashboards tracking AI's impact on jobs and growth — RishiBommasani · 2026-10-27
- Aeon's former EVP: AI agents are the most impactful innovation of my lifetime — akumar · 2026-10-27
- Physicists Let AI Pick Its Own Problem—It Wrote a Publishable Paper in 2 Hours — burny_tech · 2026-10-27
- Deep learning veteran warns: don't let entrenched disbelief derail prep for the next big tech — jachiam0 · 2026-10-27
- Should platforms serve third-party AI agents? The antitrust question — sjgadler · 2026-10-27