Debate: why CEV may be incoherent and riskier than simpler alignment proposals
xuenay · x · 2026-09-09
Responding to Raemon's defense of CEV (coherent extrapolated volition), Kaj Sotala challenges three assumptions: that the concept of CEV is coherent, that it is implementable in practice, and that it is less likely to fail catastrophically than his simpler proposal. He doubts all three, making this a substantive technical argument about whether the classic alignment target is worth pursuing.
Related event: Debate over CEV as Alignment Target: Sotala vs Raemon(6 posts)→
More from AGI Musings
- Blogger argues classical consciousness traditions imply a conscious AI could not be enslaved — eigenhector · 2026-10-27
- Economist Bharat Chandar named Research Director for AI Economics at Stanford Digital Economy Lab — RishiBommasani · 2026-10-27
- MIT Tech Review dissects Anthropic's narrative strategy as its $1.5T IPO lands — MIT Tech Review AI · 2026-10-27
- Pangram AI detector backlash: critics' false claims born of deeper fear of AI writing — gleech · 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