Dietterich: Leveson's dynamic safety is essentially alignment
tdietterich · x · 2026-09-23
tdietterich argues that Leveson's dynamic safety is the same as alignment: a safe system keeps harms below socially acceptable levels, and dynamic safety requires maintaining this despite disturbances like budget cuts, staffing changes, and changing environments. He suspects Leveson, ddwoods2, and the human factors community broadly believe machines cannot be dynamically safe on their own — it must be achieved through humans.
Related event: Alignment Community Debates Whether Dynamic Safety Equals AI Alignment(6 posts)→
More from AGI Musings
- 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
- Recursive bets on open-endedness: agents running massive parallel experiments like scientist communities — agihouse_org · 2026-11-12
- Recursive's Tim Shi maps recursive self-improvement: from learning data to discovering architectures — agihouse_org · 2026-11-12
- New essay argues design is a search problem — AI speeds exploration but that may not find optimal solutions — round · 2026-11-12