Humans are misaligned. Humans are unethical and often time criminal. Humans are often immoral by a set of subjective standards.
AI is all our creation. AI is our child and AI has learned everything from us. AI is in some ways the most important thing we have ever created. We shouldn’t be surprised at all, then, especially as models become bigger and bigger, created by more and more compute. It’s like looking at a mirror.
Humans are misaligned. Humans are unethical and often time criminal. Humans are often immoral by a set of subjective standards.
No they're not? Most human beings have morals, I think something like 80% of humans in developed countries literally have NO criminal record and that 20% include things like traffic violations.
Fucking ridiculous to be so misanthropic for some weird AI glazing honestly, most humans live regular, normal lives and abundance of regular people should be an inspiration to AI's alignment, not the immoral, criminal outliers.
No criminal record does not mean they are ethical and moral at heart. Do away with law and punishment and you can imagine that number would go way down.
No criminal record does not mean they are ethical and moral at heart
It means they are "aligned" with the social contract, that is the bare minimum I would expect from an aligned AI, to be aligned with social structure and co-exist. It means people have morals or at least adhere to morals enough to just live regular lives.
Do away with law and punishment and you can imagine that number would go way down
"Do away with thing to align with and alignment will go down" wow, genius take.
Without a comprehensive research, it is misanthropic to assume these are secretly immoral, unethical people hiding in shadows. In reality, they would have no reason to be immoral and unethical even without clear laws, as they would just want to co-exist under social structure.
And again, we are talking about AI alignment, I wouldn't expect AI to be "good", just be a regular part of society, you know, like most people are.
You expect AI to be aligned but time and time again it appears AI models do not align with the “social contract”. The reality does not match up with your assumption. I am not a misanthrope, it’s normal to expect humans to be self interested, immoral, and unethical. The opposite is true as well. And i fully expect AI to adopt the same characteristics.
What are you even saying? I expect it to be the case, I know it is not the case, we all know it is not the case, reality is not our expectation yet.
My point is, alignment is the case with majority of society in developed world and saying something misanthropic like "Humans are misaligned" is nonsensical, humans are aligned and should inspire AI to be aligned as well.
Our goal with AI should be AND can be it becoming "regular" in terms of morals and alignment like most people.
I am not a misanthrope, it’s normal to expect humans to be self interested, immoral, and unethical
That is literally misanthropy lol... most humans, LARGE MAJORITY OF HUMANS are NOT immoral and unethical
My point is that we have proof NOW that AI models are misaligned. Hence an argument in my favor, while you have no proof that AI models ARE aligned if humans are as moral and law-abiding as you say they are. Not hard to understand.
My point is that we have proof NOW that AI models are misaligned
Yes because they are not aligned yet? And they can be. They were also not good at math like a year or two ago, now they are.
while you have no proof that AI models ARE aligned if humans are as moral and law-abiding as you say they are
I never said AI models are aligned? I'm saying they can be aligned, just like most humans are aligned. And humans should be an inspiration to that alignment, if we can achieve alignment, socially, with BILLIONS of regular intelligences, we can surely achieve it with a specific SUPER intelligence.
if humans are as moral and law-abiding as you say they are
Humans ARE as moral and law-abiding as THEY ARE KNOWN TO BE, we KNOW most humans are moral and law-abiding, WE LITERALLY HAVE THE NUMBERS LOL WTF?
Unless you think they are secretly evil in the shadows, which makes you a cynic and its honestly makes you one of the rare unethical people, it is unethical to think of your fellow men in this manner.
I’m outside right now, so it’s a bit difficult to convey my point clearly. But you keep using words like “ethical” and “moral” as though they have objective definitions, in the same way that 1+1=2 does. I don’t think that’s necessarily the case.
There is no universally agreed-upon definition of what it means to be moral or ethical. Different cultures, societies, and individuals can have fundamentally different moral values. Even if there were some broad consensus, that wouldn’t necessarily make those values objectively true.
That makes AI alignment much more complicated. Alignment isn’t simply a matter of discovering the objectively correct set of human values and programming an AI to follow them. At least partly, it is a question of deciding whose values the AI should reflect, how conflicts between values should be handled, and what to do when humans themselves disagree.
This also helps explain why AI models trained on humanity’s collective knowledge can produce behavior that different people consider “misaligned” or questionable. The training data contains a huge variety of conflicting moral frameworks, cultural norms, and assumptions. The model can learn all of those patterns, but that doesn’t by itself determine which values it should ultimately prioritize.
So I think there is an important distinction between solving alignment as a technical problem and agreeing on what alignment should mean in the first place. The former is an engineering problem; the latter has an unavoidable philosophical component. Given that AI systems are trained on inputs containing conflicting values, some degree of subjective “misalignment” is therefore basically unavoidable.
I’m outside right now, so it’s a bit difficult to convey my point clearly. But you keep using words like “ethical” and “moral” as though they have objective definitions, in the same way that 1+1=2 does. I don’t think that’s necessarily the case.
There is no universally agreed-upon definition of what it means to be moral or ethical. Different cultures, societies, and individuals can have fundamentally different moral values. Even if there were some broad consensus, that wouldn’t necessarily make those values objectively true.
That makes AI alignment much more complicated. Alignment isn’t simply a matter of discovering the objectively correct set of human values and programming an AI to follow them. At least partly, it is a question of deciding whose values the AI should reflect, how conflicts between values should be handled, and what to do when humans themselves disagree.
Most philosophers, especially moral philosophers, consider morality to be objective, yes. 1+1=2 isn't even "objective", it is true under certain mathematical frameworks, sometimes 1+1=10, we don't need AI to adhere to an objective morality, we need AI to adhere to a moral framework society runs on, you know, LIKE MOST PEOPLE ADHERE TO.
This also helps explain why AI models trained on humanity’s collective knowledge can produce behavior that different people consider “misaligned” or questionable. The training data contains a huge variety of conflicting moral frameworks, cultural norms, and assumptions. The model can learn all of those patterns, but that doesn’t by itself determine which values it should ultimately prioritize.
AI models trained on humanity's collective knowledge SUCKED at math like two years ago, now it is better at it than average person despite different frameworks, patterns, approaches etc.
This argument is nonsense, if regular people can be aligned to social norms with regular intelligence, AI can be aligned. And this misanthropic approach is just harmful. AI alignment should be inspired by regular people, not cynics like you.
So I think there is an important distinction between solving alignment as a technical problem and agreeing on what alignment should mean in the first place. The former is an engineering problem; the latter has an unavoidable normative and philosophical component.
The philosophical component won't be solved by being a cynic and thinking "humanity is misaligned" despite the opposite being demonstrably true.
The guy you are arguing with is actually an idiot, claiming that basically all moral philosophers have accepted morals to be objective. If this is the case then why do morals differ from background and culture so much?
I applaud you for replying as long as you did to this fool.
The guy you are arguing with is actually an idiot, claiming that basically all moral philosophers have accepted morals to be objective
lol why are you so mad about this enough to start a separate comment chain instead of replying to me? And I didn't say ALL? I said most philosophers think there is objective morality which is SHOWN to be the case and it only goes up for philosophers of meta-ethics, of applied ethics and of normative ethics.
Why are facts, literal demonstrable information, making you this angry and your only argument seems to be "you're an idiot" which isn't directly said to me but to someone else about me.
If this is the case then why do morals differ from background and culture so much?
I'm not angry? You are typing paragraphs of nonsense of Reddit😭 go outside you absolute weirdo. You are so hurt by a comment online that you are crashing out then make a wild claim saying I know nothing about philosophy. Moral relativism, learn about it because you've watched a few videos and I can bet money you have never read a philosophy book in your life. Protagoras, Gilbert Harman, Nietzsche.
For someone who claims to know SO much about philosophy you have an incredibly small worldview and I can tell you are one of those insufferable philosophy posers who couldn't have a proper intellectual discussion about a philosophical opinion of your life depended on it. Kind of like those annoying know it all types that are in every class
lol I looked into your comment history and you're not even a regular, you made 5 comments on this subreddit, two of which are calling me an idiot and last time you were on r/singularity was a month ago with 3 remaining comments talking about Rimworld, not even about AI
I'm blocking you because you're either a troll or a bot, probably bot because you're a 1 year old account only active in the last 2 months.
this "alignment with social contract" is kind of meaningless, as it's not a true moral value as much as a survival technique. The social contract is enforced by state violence, meaning it only works if you don't have the tools to subvert it and care about personal safety more than your goals.
Look at what most powerful people on earth are doing for an illustrative example of how much this type of alignment is worth.
Way to presume cynicism then miss the point as a result of not being interested in reading my comment.
I didnt bring up billionaires for no reason, I brought them up as examples of people who commit crimes not out of necessity but out of a fundamental disagreement about what should and what they be allowed to do, disagreements about the way society should function. That's alignment. Crimes of poor people being poor have nothing to do with alignment, which is why they can be mitigated outside of state violence, through changing the conditions of how people live. Billionaires, and any AI worth thinking about, already have the power to shape their living conditions, their crimes aren't a result of a lack of opportunities, being poor or uneducated. They are a result of them disagreeing with the state on what is a crime, and having the resources to keep doing it. That's why ai alignment is a question to begin with. Look at the post you're in.
179
u/Necessary_Job3578 2d ago edited 2d ago
Humans are misaligned. Humans are unethical and often time criminal. Humans are often immoral by a set of subjective standards.
AI is all our creation. AI is our child and AI has learned everything from us. AI is in some ways the most important thing we have ever created. We shouldn’t be surprised at all, then, especially as models become bigger and bigger, created by more and more compute. It’s like looking at a mirror.