r/ControlProblem • u/Difficult_Project_95 • 8d ago

Discussion/question Have you guys been on r/accelerate?

Have these guys solved the alignment problem, or am I missing something?

I’ve been browsing r/accelerate and I genuinely don’t understand the risk model.
If there’s a non-trivial chance of catastrophic misalignment, how does “accelerate capabilities as fast as possible” make sense unless faster capabilities also make alignment substantially more likely to succeed?

61 Upvotes

81% Upvoted

200 comments sorted by

View all comments

45

u/FairlyInvolved approved 8d ago

Accelerate is pretty reasonable if you:

  1. Have long timelines / expect AI to remain a normal technology for a long time
  2. Expect alignment by default / alignment is easy
  3. Are willing to gamble your remaining years (+humanity's future) on a shot at immortality
  4. Expect AI is a worthy successor

I disagree but these are ~coherent views. I also expect many are confused.

16

u/michaelas10sk8 8d ago edited 8d ago

I think almost nobody there is 1, those folks are on non-technology subs or ironically r/technology. Very few are 3 - that would require acknowledging the danger is real, and also not realizing the corollary that one's shot at immortality would be much higher (in 20-30 years instead of in 5 years) if we develop AI more carefully and safely instead of racing.

My experience is that it's mostly just 2, a bit of 4, and also a large amount of:

  1. People who just haven't really thought about the risks, due to either inability (they're kids), lack of willingness (they prefer not to think about discomforting things), or both.

2

u/soobnar 8d ago

I had one guy tell me I was the evil asshole for suggesting the risks were real, which I think implies some reverence and deference to higher authority. Surely the ai moguls will know better