AI researchers clash over whether 'alignment' belongs in policy discussions
kdkeck · x · 2026-09-22
AI researchers are debating whether the term 'alignment' belongs in policy discussions. kdkeck argues it's only meaningful in circles that correctly understand it, and suggests policy-facing terms like safety, liability, perverse incentives, and moral hazard instead — while davidmanheim counters that without articulating how system safety differs from alignment, no reasonable policy decisions about future systems can be made.
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