Manheim: without distinguishing safety from alignment, AI policy is impossible
davidmanheim · x · 2026-09-22
Continuing the terminology debate, the counterpart holds that "alignment" is indispensable in technical discussions, just not in general policy discourse, and that jargon misappropriation is unavoidable—one can only politely correct it. David Manheim strongly disagrees: if we cannot make the substantive point that a system's safety differs from its alignment, we cannot make reasonable policy decisions about future systems—which is exactly the current debate.
Related event: AI Safety Researchers Debate Whether "Alignment" Belongs in Policy Talks(4 posts)→
More from AGI Musings
- Lists are the clearest AI writing tell: plausible at a glance, hollow on inspection — sethlazar · 2026-09-23
- Commentary: big tech uses safety concerns to stifle smaller AI rivals — DavidLinthicum · 2026-09-23
- Western pharma lobbies to keep drug deal options with Chinese companies despite 2025 law — pstAsiatech · 2026-09-23
- Biotech founder: AI gave me a 10-100x productivity boost in rare-disease drug design — zakkohane · 2026-09-23
- AI risk doesn't need EA's conceptual machinery, argues zetalyrae — austinc3301 · 2026-09-23
- The First Jobs AI May Kill Are the Ones People Need to Gain Experience — yi111 · 2026-09-23