5 ms·
>assuming it is aligned with us If we don't figure out alignment, we can't make this assumption. This is the part that AI safety people are concerned with maki
by AgentME 4y ago
>assuming it is aligned with us
If we don't figure out alignment, we can't make this assumption. This is the part that AI safety people are concerned with making reality.
- PartiallyTyped 4y agoI think I was misunderstood. My point is that not only do we need to consider the cases where the AI is smarter than us, but also the cases where it is dumber than we expect it. An aligned agent will not fall into stupid errors, thus solving the lower bound of performance is a necessity for complete alignment.
- AgentME 4y agoOhh, right on. Definitely agree now that I've re-read it right. I was a little confused by the first sentence of your other post and thought you were putting forward a disagreement in the second sentence.
- pharmakom 4y agoI don't see how alignment is a different problem from making an AI do what we want.
- PartiallyTyped 4y agoIt's more about the unintended consequences, the implied/contextual information and getting it to do what we want in a way actually fulfills our goals instead of merely satisfying a condition. A task such as "bring me a cup of tea" has lots of implied information such as not making it too hot to burn the person, not breaking anything in the process, not harming other people in the process and so on.
- AgentME 4y agoI think that's a fair way of putting alignment. The concern is that we might make an AI that's capable of outsmarting us before we're good at making it care about doing what we want instead of some other goal that disregards what we really care about like our safety.