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
- EA as advisor or total law? Insiders clash over effective altruism's boundaries — NathanpmYoung · 2026-09-23
- When AI teaches everything, residential college is higher ed's future, argues Berkeley principal — begusgasper · 2026-09-23
- Will humans stay valuable post-AGI? Researchers clash over the ant analogy — danfaggella · 2026-09-23
- As AI Chugs Lean Proofs, Mathematicians Are About to Feel the Pain — ctjlewis · 2026-09-23
- Suleyman Resurfaces Foreign Affairs Essay: AI Governance Needs Tech Firms at the Table — mustafasuleyman · 2026-09-23
- Researcher Argues Parallel Agent Swarms Are a Weak Path to RSI — gleech · 2026-09-23