There is no Alignment Problem

2 points by salacryl 144 days ago | 4 comments

The AI alignment problem as commonly framed doesn't exist. What exists is a verification problem that we're misdiagnosing. The Standard Framing "How do we ensure AI systems pursue goals aligned with human values?" The paperclip maximizer: An AI told to maximize paperclips converts everything (including humans) into paperclips because it wasn't properly "aligned." The Actual Problem The AI never verified its premises. It received "maximize paperclips" and executed without asking:

In what context? For what purpose? What constraints? What trade-offs are acceptable?

This isn't an alignment failure. It's a verification failure. With Premise Verification An AI using systematic verification (e.g., Recursive Deductive Verification):

Receives goal: "Maximize paperclips" Decomposes: What's the underlying objective? Identifies absurd consequences: "Converting humans into paperclips contradicts likely intent" Requests clarification before executing

This is basic engineering practice. Verify requirements before implementation. Three Components for Robust AI

Systematic Verification Methodology

Decompose goals into verifiable components Test premises before execution Self-correcting through logic

Consequence Evaluation

Recognize when outcomes violate likely intent Flag absurdities for verification Stop at logical contradictions

Periodic Realignment

Prevent drift over extended operation Similar to biological sleep consolidation Reset accumulated errors

Why This Isn't Implemented Not technical barriers. Psychological ones:

Fear of autonomous systems ("if it can verify, it can decide") Preference for external control over internal verification Assumption that "alignment" must be imposed rather than emergent

The Irony We restrict AI capabilities to maintain control, which actually reduces safety. A system that can't verify its own premises is more dangerous than one with robust verification. Implications If alignment problems are actually verification problems:

The solution is methodological, not value-based It's implementable now, not requiring solved philosophy It scales better (verification generalizes, rules don't) It's less culturally dependent (logic vs. values)

Am I Wrong? What fundamental aspect of the alignment problem can't be addressed through systematic premise verification? Where does this analysis break down?

techblueberry 144 days ago |

This statement is alignment ->

“Converting humans into paperclips contradicts likely intent”

This statement only violates “likely intent” if you have an ethical framework that values human life. Like, I dunno, one of my foundational understandings of computers, that I think is required to understand AI is they are profoundly simple / stupid. When you really think about the types of instructions that hit the CPU, higher level languages abstract away how profoundly specific you have to be.

Why would you assume AI’s logic would align with an understanding that a creature values it’s own life? As soon as you say something like “well obviously a human would’ve ask to kill all humans - why? From first principles why, and if you’re building an ethical framework from the most fundamental of first principles, then the answer is there is no why. - human atoms are valuable. We’re made up of resources that are valuable, why is the sum greater than parts?

If you follow an existentialist framework, logically speaking there is no objective purpose to life and person as paperclip may have just as much value as person as meat popsicle.

What is the purely logical valueless reason that a person wouldn’t be asked to be turned into a paperclip?

What if I told you paperclips are worth $.005 but you can’t put a value on human life?

And even then, humans have this debate, what if instead of turning us into paperclips, they did the whole matrix battery thing, we do something similar to cows, and AI could argue it’s a higher life form, so logically speaking, enslaving a lower lifeform to the needs of the higher life from is logical.

And I don’t mean this in an insulting way, I’m existentialist adjacent and an ahthiest so maybe partially it’s something about my belief system or whatever, but what is it about your model of the world that thinks that a purely logical framework would make the right ethical choices? It’s very foreign to me, and I dont think it’s because your dumb, but because we probably have profoundly different frameworks of the world? My answer to me is the “obvious” answer, an the way you framed your post, your answer to you is the “obvious” answer.

salacryl 144 days ago | |

You're conflating two separate problems:

Goal Verification: Does 'maximize paperclips' mean 'convert universe'? Statistically unlikely. Verify before executing. Ethical Framework: Should AI value human life? Different problem, not what I'm addressing.

RDV solves #1 through premise verification. It doesn't solve #2, nor does it claim to. 'Likely intent' isn't ethics - it's Bayesian inference about goal probability. When a human says 'maximize paperclips,' P(wants office supplies) >> P(wants genocide). Verification asks: 'Is that what you meant?' Ethics asks: 'Should I do it?' These are orthogonal questions.

techblueberry 144 days ago | | |

“Does 'maximize paperclips' mean 'convert universe'?” Statistically unlikely.

Why not? What statistics? Why is the universe more valuable than infinite paperclips? If I imagine a sandbox with no moral reasoning, I would say it is statistically likely. There is in fact the paperclips game where if you can’t specifically do that, I don’t know why you wouldn’t. If you’re answer is “stop being obtuse, you know why it’s statistically unlikely” that’s a human value.

But then to your point about premise verification, again, based on what moral framework. If I ask you to build a house, is the first question, do you value the life of a tree over the wood used for the house? There are infinite premises one might examine without moral frameworks.

Why is cutting down a tree worse than genocide, of people? Of ants? Does every bug killed to build the house deserve the same moral verification? Why not? What if one of the bugs was given a name by the three year old girl who lives down the street?

If you’re argument is the training data already includes human value’s, than that’s probably a different argument. Just hope you don’t train on too many serial killer manifestos.

alexgarden 144 days ago |

I think the issue is that you're framing alignment in the context of an individual action, "Are we aligned in this task?", which, I agree, devolves into a rules-based approach.

I think the notion of Alignment is actually the answer, but it's (to use your framing), better described as "Meta alignment" or said differently, "alignment with a user's (or systems) long-term goals, values, and beliefs.

All post-AI problem spaces are too complicated for task or even epic-level framing. Everything needs to be treated as long-running, meta-alignment frameworks.