AI Alignment Research Criticized for Being Overly Technical
joshua_saxe · x · 2026-07-16
The author agrees that while their critique of the AI alignment research paradigm may not be as rigorous as a formal investigation, it remains valid.
The core argument is that the current AI safety research paradigm has "embedded" a certain bias in a Kuhnian sense. This paradigm consists of a whole set of simplifying assumptions, research subjects, capital and infrastructure, training programs, and classic texts (e.g., MATS, Bostrom / Superintelligence), which collectively frame "misalignment" primarily as a technical problem.
The author believes this framework severely underestimates the importance of treating society and social processes as first-class research subjects.
More from AGI Musings
- HarmonicMath says Lean autonomously solved eight previously studied open problems — MarioKrenn6240 · 2026-07-21
- AI hype turns noise into risk, the author argues, and proposes radical transparency for ethics — AryHHAry · 2026-07-21
- A 2015 ML veteran reflects on how the field changed and where it goes next — j_foerst · 2026-07-21
- After AI Accelerates Analysis, Real-World Feedback Becomes the New Bottleneck — claud_fuen · 2026-07-21
- Interactive AI game-theory sandbox maps incentives across the AI economy — cpaik · 2026-07-21
- Future leaders need systems thinking, not just coding or AI literacy — AryHHAry · 2026-07-21