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
- OpenAI, Anthropic and DeepMind job posts signal PMs must write evals and code — aakashgupta · 2026-11-12
- Architecture study sparks monitoring concerns over a multi-hop planning spike — ChowdhuryNeil · 2026-11-12
- PowerShell creator Jeffrey Snover at Ignite: AI revolution is an extinction event for those who don't adapt — dfinke · 2026-11-12
- Worst AI use: signaling you don't care about things you should — Afinetheorem · 2026-11-12
- Stanford HAI blueprint: 56 US agencies report 3,611 AI use cases, evaluation lags — StanfordHAI · 2026-11-12
- Fleuret amplifies debate: AI can't slash wet-lab experiments in unmapped biology — francoisfleuret · 2026-11-12