I don't think this captures the full mechanics of human alignment. We have rational alignment but we also have emotional alignment, i.e., empathy. It is an auto

I don't think this captures the full mechanics of human alignment. We have rational alignment but we also have emotional alignment, i.e., empathy. It is an automatic process and happens (or doesn't happen) dynamically with the other humans we observe. This is one of the hard limitations of LLMs, they will never be natively in tune with this layer of alignment. Culture is another layer of human alignment. Those things you listed that you believe oppose alignment are all examples of alignment. It is understandable that they seem in opposition, different branches of alignment naturally oppose each other. The confusion comes from talking about alignment as if it comes in just one flavor. If we think there is such a thing as "human values" (and I do), it is important to build any non-human intelligence to operate the same way. We just need to recognize that even humans are somewhat uncertain about what those are and have difficulty aligning their behavior to them, which will be a core part of the challenge. I'm more hopeful than most. LLMs seem more reliable than many humans for behavior that is aligned with human values. I believe with every major example where they have failed, there is an important human decision involved. For example, the HF hack was partly the result of a training algorithm that incentivized goal completion as the highest priority, and let them run endlessly in an unmonitored sandbox with weak security. What scares me about AI isn't its capacity for alignment, it is its unlimited stamina. An unmonitored LLM that is off the rails can do a lot of damage.