I'm here for the "AI alignment" <> "Human alignment" analogy/comparison. The fact that we haven't solved the latter should put a bound on how well we expect to

I'm here for the "AI alignment" <> "Human alignment" analogy/comparison. The fact that we haven't solved the latter should put a bound on how well we expect to be able to "solve" the former. Perhaps "checks and balances" are a better frame than merely "solving alignment", after all, alignment to which human? Many humans would fear a super-powerful AGI aligned to any specific human or corporation. The big difference though, is that there is no human as powerful as the plausible power of the AI systems that we might build in the next few decades, and so even if we only get partial AI alignment, it's plausibly more important than improvements in "human alignment", as the stakes are higher. FWIW one of my candidates for "stable solutions" to super-human AGI is simply the Hanson model, where countries and corporations all have AGI systems of various power levels, and so any system that tries to take over or do too much harm would be checked, just like the current system for international norms and policing of military actions. That's quite a weak frame of checks and balances (cf. Iraq, Afghanistan, Ukraine) so it's in some sense pessimistic. But on the other hand, I think it provides a framework where full extinction or destruction of civilization can perhaps be prevented.