Owning the most GPUs shouldn't confer moral authority over AI values, argue alignment debaters
cocktailpeanut · x · 2026-09-18
Quoting jconorgrogan's article arguing nobody agrees what 'aligned' or 'safe' AI means, this thread captures a core dispute in AI safety.
- The original article: we must clearly distinguish what these words cover before reasoning about AI safety; buying the most GPUs should not confer the ethical authority to define what powerful AI systems should value, pursue, or refuse — technical control must not harden into moral authority.
- The quoter's counterpoint: the more people use AI, the more resistant they become to propaganda and the more power shifts to individuals — so the best response is to get more people using more AI.
A snapshot of the disagreement over who gets to define AI alignment.
More from AGI Musings
- Anil Seth reflects on two years of debate over his conscious-AI target article — anilkseth · 2026-09-18
- Anil Seth's Conscious AI and Biological Naturalism collection out in BBS with fifty commentaries — anilkseth · 2026-09-18
- Anil Seth's conscious AI collection published in BBS with 50 commentaries — anilkseth · 2026-09-18
- Noam Brown: models may perform their chain of thought; alignment must be solved — infoxiao · 2026-09-18
- The 'Seniority Cliff': skipping junior-level friction may hollow out engineering intuition — Jumpy-Increase9337 · 2026-09-18
- Gary Marcus: the 'nobody saw AI security risks coming' narrative is completely false — GaryMarcus · 2026-09-18